We don't have to blindly accept the Constitution as it is. After all, unlike religious texts, it's amendable, which is how the Second Amendment got there in the first place. So we're allowed to consider whether any particular provision serves the public interest, and whether it should be removed, weakened, left alone or strengthened.
I believe that the populace should have some privilege to possess weaponry, but I can't consider personal possession of guns to be a right. First, there are types of people that must be prevented from having weapons--children, criminals and the insane. And there are types of weaponry that should not be available--fusion bombs being the extreme.
So if we need limits on which people can have which weapons, how can possession of weapons by people logically be anything more than a privilege? It's possible to preserve it as a right, however, by making it communal, rather than personal. And once you make it communal, it's also possible to allow different communities to set different limits.
The best rewrite of the Second Amendment I've been able to come up with is this: "The populace of each community shall have the right to keep appropriate means available for its defense."