The fuck does the fact that they owned slaves have to do with anything? They owned slaves, therefore the 2nd Amendment is dumb? Or are you calling the entire Bill of Rights dumb? I would demand you account for yourself for that statement, because it's borderline useless. The 2nd Amendment was designed as a law of rebellion to arm and protect a fledgling nation from foreign and domestic threats (pre rebellion, the confiscation of weapons was technically a domestic threat; the founders realized that was unacceptable of a government). I'd call that quite intelligent considering the United States was made up of a volunteer army combined with local militias. It made perfect sense to ensure an armed populace.
You're right about one thing - this is no longer the 18th Century, therefore we should reexamine our [gun] laws. I submit the following to you: the United States, despite its high gun ownership, is still enjoying a decline in gun crime. Factcheck.org is even unsure of the overall effectiveness of laws like the 1994 AWB, considering the targeted guns ("assault weapons"/rifles) were so rarely used before and after the AWB expired in 2004.
What I find hilarious is the majority of the gun debates focus on the least used weapons - rifles. Oh yes, they are definitely used to the most violent effect (see San Bernardino, Aurora, Sandy Hook), but even AWB compliant weapons have been used to enact mass shootings (Hi Point 995 at Columbine; a bolt action rifle was used at Virginia Tech). But rifles are the post it note of violent crime, let alone gun crime. In a year like 2011, 323 rifles were used in murders, yet 496 blunt objects and 1,694 knives were used to murder. 6,220 handguns were used, as per the FBI.gov crimestats
We already have FOPA, which prohibits ownership of automatics without a federally obtained permit (Class III for Type II weapons), and that requires background checks and you end up on a federal registry. We already have the Brady Bill which prohibits sale of pistols to criminals and the mentally ill, though I wholeheartedly agree this is a very difficult law to effectively enforce (and I'd argue its enforcement sucks). So I ask, what would you have us do? Fully ban guns as you've suggested? Ridiculous, wishful thinking. Again, despite our high ownership, gun crime has been steadily on the decline. The debate is even stranger, because I have to ask the following: do you think guns are a symptom of a problem or a problem? States like Vermont (0.3 gun murders/per capita) and New Hampshire (0.4) have virtually no murders despite Vermont & NH's lax laws, yet the District of Columbia has a 16.5 murders w/ guns per capita and handguns are illegal there! What's even weirder is California is a massive state with heavy laws, yet the murder rate with guns per capita isn't even much higher at 3.4.
I hate to cite Michael Fucking Moore's movie, Bowling, but I think he was right to say there's something wrong with Americans. I just don't think he's right that it's simply the guns. They are a tool, yet there's no common trend causing them to be used. The right wants to deflect it onto mental health while doing nothing; the left screams bloody murder about how we're murdering everyone everywhere. The numbers "appear" large, but they really aren't! They're on the decline! We're a massive country and we've managed to now blow ourselves up. Oh sure, no gun crime is a brilliant ideal. No nation has ever achieved that. None. On the flip side, the US has far more mass shootings than any European nation, and Australia has managed to nearly eradicate mass shootings since '94.
So, do you really think banning guns will solve the problems Americans face? I'd even ask if guns really are the problem here. Why not economics? The US doesn't have any meaningful social safety nets. We have terrible prison systems that punish, not rehabilitate. Roughly 2/3 felons are re-arrested; recidivism is a massive problem for Americans and it's made worse by how poorly we treat felons.
It is far more logical to extend the Brady Bill to Rifles and actually enforce background checks than it is to ban guns. Secondly, I'd be OK with mandatory education programs akin to a driver's license. I think it's silly to say that government training is "omg they're taking our guns!" No, that's them showing you how to use them effectively and safely. That's quite logical, and failure to comply makes sense to prohibit ownership and use. Would you let a blind person drive? No. Would you let a drunk person drive? No. Makes sense to prohibit morons from grabbing guns.