I see your point, but I also think there is something in between a total ban some propose and virtual laissez faire that exists now. In fact, the Second Amendment cleraly stipulates effective regulation ("well-regulated militia") - and I am surprised that victims of school massacres involving fire arms did not sue their respective states for the violation of the Second - namely their failure to implement effective regulation of fire arms.
The absence of such regulation can be clearly demonstrated by comparison with driver licensing. Every owner/operator of a motor vehicle is required to register the vehicle, obtian liability insurence and pass driver competence/safety test before he/she is issued a licence. None of these regulations abridge in any way the "right" to own a means of transportation, even though no constitutional law stipulates that such transporation sould be 'well-regulated'.
So the fact that similar regulations have not been enacted in relation to gun ownership can clearly construed as a state's violation of the Second - resulting in gund falling into the hand of minors who subsequently inflicted substantial harm on others. I am surprised that such a strategy has not been pursued in courts, or was it?
A broader point is that regulation can greatly improve gun-related safety and provide effective means to prosecute criminal elements for gun law violations than no regulations at all.
Wojtek