Revisit the amendment
The Second Amendment served a purpose when it was ratified in 1791. We had just ended a war with England and needed to protect ourselves from other potential invading foreign powers.
Secondly, the Founding Fathers viewed an organized, standing army as a threat to freedom due to the power it would yield, and opted for the formation of state militias.
There was also a racist aspect to the amendment. We were fighting a genocidal war against Indigenous people and needed to arm the populace to conduct it. In addition, armed state militias were necessary to defend against a slave rebellion and, quite frankly, to preserve slavery.
Though the Second Amendment made sense when it was created, based on the nation's priorities at the time, the rationale for the amendment today is an anachronism. The way it is currently interpreted has no bearing on its original intent and has expanded the rights of gun ownership to an irrational point -- and we have a standing army today.
No politician, Democrat or Republican, has a problem with hunting rifles or hand guns for protection. But assault rifles, AR-15s, AK-47s, and the like, weapons of war, are another story. These weapons should be banned.
If the justification for the Second Amendment is to adequately arm and resist such aggression, then AR-15s and AK-47s would be woefully inadequate to resist or defend against the might of the U.S. military. Thus, if this is the reason to justify the amendment today, citizens should be equipped with weaponry compatible with our potential enemy -- the U.S. military -- and therefore, should be equipped with say missile silos in the backyard and a tank in the garage. And even those would be insufficient as a defense against the strongest military on the planet.
Congress should repeal and rewrite the Second Amendment.