I think. . .the entire debate on gun control is an utter waste of time, because both sides are simultaneously right and wrong. One side has it right in the form of "the Constitution was made so that the people can overthrow the government, and they specifically named guns as the tool, so outright banning it is out. There's also other situations where guns are necessary, whether it be for sustenance or survival. Plus, some people think it's a cool hobby or something." The other side is right because "gun violence in America is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the first-world, and having people die to such things in this day and age is a tragedy. Especially the school shootings, our kids shouldn't be exposed to such danger."
But if you take into the account the Constitution side (for a militia), it's clear that your average handgun isn't going to do squat against modern military technology. Which means that people would need to stock up on much more heavy-duty guns, but then we have the side that seriously doesn't want their kids to be turned into practice dummies by some nutcase, which is also a valid concern. Yet America hasn't conquered the known world, because those that don't die, adapt. Instead of having a direct shoot-out, any sort of successful revolution would need to rely on guerilla tactics, homemade weapons (I hear fertilizer's good for explosives), and fighting extraordinarily dirty (using children as shields and such). But by that time, a whole lot of other laws would've been broken, so the word of gun control would be useless. 'sides, I'm sure Russia/China would love to supply weapons to a potentially destabilizing force in the US.
Then there's the issue of those that actually need a gun, and lumping them in with someone who's paranoid of the government does them no favors.
And for those that want guns out? That's an argument against an amendment, and it's pretty clear that the writers intended for the citizens to have some form of defense against the government. So those that truly wanted to ban guns would be pushing for a convention, instead of throwing out arguments that aren't going to help until the giant elephant in the form of the Second Amendment is addressed.
I think the best remedy would be to push for better social conditions for the pro side (that means universal healthcare, stronger worker's rights, better working conditions, and much better support for the poor at absolute minimum), and a constitutional amendment for the con side. Each of these addresses something closer to the root of the issue (crazy/desperate people for the pro, the Constitution for the con). Plus some controls, since I don't think someone who spent time in prison for first-degree murder should be allowed to own a gun.
Gun control is great for emotional discussion that ultimately distracts from the bigger issues.