We could erase the second amendment and it wouldn't change where we are
The only legal repercussions of the second amendment have been SCOTUS cases ruling that outright full bans like Chicago and DC used to have are impermissible -- even DC's severely restrictive new licensing regime just survived.
Heller specifically allowed, for example, an assault weapons ban. I think those are bad laws, but that's beside the point: even with an explicit OK from SCOTUS we don't have the votes to pass one. Heller implies that universal background checks are allowed. This is a much better law, which even a majority of firearms owners support, and we don't have the votes to pass it.
We're so far below the legal threshold that SCOTUS has set for the second amendment that arguing about changing it is almost perverse, like me talking about where I will hang my Olympic gold medal I'm not even training for.
If we woke up tomorrow and the second amendment were gone (moths got into the Archives or something), it wouldn't change our problem whatsoever: we still wouldn't have votes to pass regulations that are currently allowed by 2nd amendment jurisprudence. It would allow Chicago and DC to go back to outright bans, but even DC is coming around to the notion that its own wasn't terribly effective.
The second amendment may be badly written or badly conceived, but it isn't the problem right now; the problem right now is a Congress that won't even bring up for a vote the kind of regulations that are currently allowed. To put it another way, if we had the votes to repeal it, we wouldn't need to, because we'd have the votes to pass the kinds of regulations we want as it is.