There was an interesting essay ("Second Thoughts") in the current issue of The New Republic by a fellow at Brookings. It was prompted by the decision, discussed below, invalidating DC's ban on handguns. The author observes that although the Second Amendment's reference to a "militia" make the meaning reasonably clear, as courts have generally held, it no longer makes sense in America, since that reference is to a Revolution-era body that no longer exists. And the interest in gun control, so this argument goes, differs from locality to locality in the U.S. What makes sense in DC or other urban areas (a ban on guns) might not in rural areas (where the population is less dense). If the Second Amendment were repealed, then each jurisdiction could decide for itself what makes sense.
Although I favor gun control (having lived in urban settings most of my adult life), I have to admit there's a certain logic to this argument. I fear, though, that conservative states that are basically held captive by the NRA will actually loosen gun controls if the Second Amendment is repealed, but it's a discussion worth having.