You still have not explained exactly how the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted (except maybe by some gun fanatics). If you listen only to Michael Moore, you will get only a very distorted view of the truth. Moore is a great entertainer, and a great propagandist.
Whether we like it or not, the US Constitution does allow citizens the right to bear arms. Research into the the original intent of those who added that amendment (sometimes called "Founders") shows that they did actually intend that citizens be allowed to have arms as a defense against over-reaching and illegal government encroachment into their lives (specifically based on their experience with the British Government, whom they had just broken away from). There is a lot of documentation of the discussions that took place when this amendment was proposed and placed in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms was not just for hunting, but even if it were, hunters usually have more than one gun. What number of guns do you think are allowed by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution? Would each person legally having only one or a few firearms actually reduce crimes committed with guns?
As you have rightly corrected me, the Second Amendment gave the "right to bear arms" otherwise known as the "right to form militia" / better know today as "an irregular army", that is a long way from every person in America has the right to own a gun - but not be part of a militia. The words "right to bear arms" dates back to 1330 and it means military, or to fight. Considering the pretty small time period from independence to the Second Amendment it is hardly a surprise to see that America has granted its people the "legal" right to for militia to defend itself / its people.
The very obvious misinterpretation (by many people) cannot simply be put down to a mistranslation of what "arms" meant back in the late 1700's, it is a deliberate misinterpretation by those who simply want to own guns, yet many don't go hunting, don't belong to a "militia", they are often cited as a "self defense weapon".
There are, of course, weapons that were not envisioned in 1791. One cannot not own a tank, a bomb, or a nuclear weapon. Some assault weapons have been beaned by states and the Federal government.
You missed "machine guns" in your list. And as far as "some" assault weapons being banned by "some" states is totally insane as there are loopholes that simply allow a different manufacturer to make an otherwise identical machine gun to one that is banned, the one with a different manufacturer is NOT banned - crazy.
But the vast majority of guns that are involved in US crimes are not the kind could be banned without a pretty clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Government can and does require that one go through a background check, and that convicted criminals not be allowed to buy guns, etc. Reasonable controls and restrictions can be enacted, but it is unlikely that gun sales can be banned (as in the UK) unless the US Constitution is changed. Maybe we should ban gun sales to students enrolled in a PhD program?
And we all know just how well that works. The US constitution should be changed and it would have been a long time ago if it were not for political gain/loss.
Once you have a country that has had guns legally (and in many cases illegally) for 220 years (and actually long before that), they are not so easy to get rid of. If the constitution were to be changed, then it would likely be the case that only criminals and the police would have guns (criminals are not going to turn in their guns), and crime would be totally out of control. In many parts of the rural US, it was historically the case that there was not sufficient police resources to provide law enforcement protection, and having gun in your house was the only way to protect yourself. Even today, one reads about home invasions by criminals, even in populated areas.
The UK managed it and guns have been owned in the UK before America was discovered. The average person in the UK does not need to own a gun, the vast majority of our police do NOT carry guns, they don't even have bullet proof vests, just stab-proof vests. The majority of criminals do not carry guns, this almost totally destroys the classic "arms race" between criminals, the police and the average person on the street. If the UK can do it, why cant the USA.?
A great deal of the gun crime in the UK happens in city's, generally by criminal gangs (often drug related) and never using legally obtained guns - note that hand guns are banned. Most of these types of murders are the ones that people read and then smile - one drug toting criminal shooting another, however innocent people often get caught in the cross fire. Beyond that, there are the usual domestic cases and the occasional rampage - most of these types involve legally owned guns.
Regarding Mexico, one the most obscene things is the recent "Fast and Furious" program run by the Obama Administration. In theory, the US government was supposed to sell (as an under-cover operation) arms illegally to known Mexican drug cartel members along the US-Mexican border (but in the US), and then the US (working with the Mexican government) would trace them back to the drug lords so they could be charged with the illegal firearms purchase. However, even though the Mexican government stopped cooperating with the program, the Obama administration continued to sell the arms. One such firearm was used to kill a US Federal Law Enforcement Agency member, and Eric Holder (US Attorney General) has been trying to cover up the details of this fiasco (which is why he was held in contempt by the US Congress). Bush once tried a similar program, but shut it down once they realized that the Mexican government was not cooperating.
That is an insane thing to do, and sounds very much like the CIA arming and training people to do their dirty work for them - sometime it comes back to bite you in the arse.
As unfortunate as the recent event in Colorado was, statistically it is insignificant compared to the number of people killed by dunk/drugged drivers in the US each year, or the number of people killed by incompetent doctors and other health care workers.
Insignificant in strictly numerical terms, but that is the same here in the UK. However in the last 46 years the number of road deaths has dropped dramatically by the following reasons (excluding general car safety), drink driving is almost banned, 1-pint and you are illegal, seat-belts are compulsory and not wearing one is illegal, speed limits on roads were introduced, better road signs, pedestrian crossings with lights and so on.
The number of people killed via car accidents is like the murder rate, much lower in the UK than the US. Come on America, sort yourself out.
Anyway back on topic.
m0002a, you have not said anything about my third point.