Seems like the current "3rd rail" of politics is 2nd amendment rights. The White House and other Democrats are quick to say they aren't planning on confiscation or other violation of the amendment. I have no desire to violate constitutional amendments, but would love to see this embarrassing mistake repealed.
Its original purpose of supporting a militia was never accomplished in practice, and that its modern interpretation (thanks, Scalia et al) is applied unequally. Some of our citizens are presumed to be illegally armed, and are quickly shot, just in case (e.g. those lives that also matter). Other citizens can threaten people working to enforce law, and get a pass (i.e. the Bundy clan). The main application of the amendment is to protect a hobby.
The "responsible" reasons to have a firearm seem to include self or home protection. This would be moot if there were pretty much no guns out there, and the risk of guns at home is large, both to residents, and to others after a theft. Another reason is varmint or predator control on a farm or ranch. Is there anyone who thinks this would not be allowed in most countries? Then we come to hunting. For most people this is a sport. The few rural citizens that hunt for staple food also would qualify for gun ownership as rural residents, I would think. A sport hunter that brings home some venison is not hunting for food, just the menu choice. Even the hobby of collecting could be maintained, with the kind of licensing now required for machine guns.
I think it is easy to argue that for the vast majority of gun owners it is a hobby. It is the only one I know of with its own item in the Bill of Rights. the amendment mainly protects itself, like a virus that piggybacks on normal cells and conscripts them into making more virus particles. Even so, if there were just one case of a larger injustice that was prevented by application of the 2nd amendment it would have served a purpose. I can't think of one. It did not prevent the British invading during the War of 1812, or the Civil War secession. It didn't prevent lynchings, or church bombings, or Jim Crow laws. It does not do anything useful to society at large, and it certainly does not provide any check on government tyranny.
It's the crazy uncle in the shed, compared to the broad reach and philosophical depth of the 4th, 5th, 6th, or the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments. I wish it were gone. As to gun ownership, feel free to keep weapons at home, but if yours get stolen I will hold you responsible.
As long as the amendment is law we can't do much. Even if it does not mention it, I think limits on ammunition would be attacked by using the amendment. I remember the White House (Clinton?) asking to have marker substances added to explosives, and even that was a loser politically. Limits on gunpowder would eventually decrease the amount of off-the books ammo, because no one will be making smokeless powder at home. Even black powder is scary, and not useful for an autoloader weapon.
But the roadblock of this anachronism is huge. Let's remove it.