@ Brickhistory
You
could change your constitution. That's not a directive, it's a suggestion. It is open to much interpretation (see Scalia on the matter), so reinterpretation is also an option.
What I'd like to know is the justification for having such arms. Why do you need anything more than a revolver or a single-shot rifle or shotgun available to everyone? As I said before, "it's in the Constitution" is not a reason, it's a
post hoc justification which puts the cart before the horse.
@ Ronald Reagan
The most logical thing to do to prevent such a tragedy in a school again would be to have armed security at the schools, possibly armed teachers or even better a volunteer force of retired police/military etc. This way you make children safer in schools and you continue the freedom of the people to have guns, a true win win situation.
Take a look at the costs of this. To have even one armed guard in every school in the US would cost about $7.2Bn per year (perhaps as low as $5Bn if they can be laid off during school breaks) in wages alone, adding costs of training and arming them. Where's that going to come from?
Then you have to ask whether these people can cover the entire campus - Virginia Tech had armed guards, and police were on-scene within 3 minutes, but they were unable to prevent the death of 33 people.
Finally there is the question of vetting the required 30,000 armed guards for both their ability to work with children and their mental stability.
It's simply not a viable solution on grounds of being unworkable and ineffective.