The second amendment is not the problem, the interpretation is. That can be said of whatever religion's holy books as well. It wasn't until the Heller case in 2008, that's right 2008, that the constitution had been interpreted as protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Prior to 2008 every supreme court decision had interpreted the second amendment with attention to the "well regulated militia" language. This court by a single vote changed the interpretation. The 5 votes were the usual who claim that courts shouldn't be activist and must respect presidence. Except when they don't like the status quo I guess. The majority attempted to explain their choice to ignore the "well regulated" clause by asserting that the militia consisted of all males in the nation. All that is needed to renew the possibility of vigorous gun control is a single vote on the Supreme Court to switch. For those interested in more information on Heller the wikipedia page explains the context and impact of that case in a balanced way.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The NRA has since the second half of the 20th century claimed that the 2nd amendment protected individual ownership and had convinced many Americans that this was the history and the law of the land, but it was not true until the Heller case.