> First off, I don't live in the US and I don't have a horse in this race.
Not living in the US presumably subjects you to position bias. Those who live in countries where gun rights are strong tend to favor gun rights. Those who live in countries where gun control is strong tend to favor gun control. This is true of most things, as the moral compasses of most are drawn from what is currently normative to their existing environment. This is true of most places in which socio-political biases are codified into law, whether regarding religion, gay rights, whatever; Change in these areas tends to come slowly if at all.
> guns should be regulated further
Perhaps they should, perhaps they shouldn't. I have my bias, as I'm sure does everyone engaged in the discussion, but, at the end of the day, the document of the highest possible authority suggests that the citizenry should have access to guns, and the only way to overturn that is by ratifying that document. Thankfully, the document itself offers prescriptive measures for such ratification, but at the end of the day, without a strong enough amount of support throughout the nation and states for such a measure to pass.
At present, such support does not exist, so our politicians play different games on what does or does not constitute "infringement".
In the past, the argument was that it wasn't infringing if the person who wanted to exercise gun rights wasn't a member of a militia. We can prove historically and grammatically that this isn't true, but it took the Supreme Court's agreement for the legislature to accept it.
Then, the argument was that sure, it's an individual right and not limited to those in the militia, but hey, the second amendment says you can keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say where, so instead, the government insists that the right is only applicable to within the home. Have as many guns as you like, and carry them anywhere you want, as long as it's inside your home.
It took Chicago v. McDonald getting that one overturned in 2012 by the Supreme Court.
So, legally speaking, we know that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, disconnected from membership in a militia, and it extends outside the home. To those who favor gun rights, the matter might settled, but to those who favor gun control, it's a challenge to come up with a new rule that doesn't directly contradict those recently affirmed rules by the Supreme Court.
In D.C., the argument is currently that the right to keep and bear arms is only available to those with a heightened need... but what other right in our Constitution merits such a high bar to exercise? Would it be okay to restrict voting only to those harmed by the current administration? Would it be okay to limit speech only to those who can show that they have been victimized?
Anyway, I'm obviously ranting, and there's certainly more of my bias in this post than I intended, so I should shut up. The point, that I'm sure I made poorly, is that the law here says that we can have firearms, and that not even the elected legislature has the power to overturn that without ratifying the Constitution... unless they can come up with something legally clever, or wait until there exists a more favorable court to their cause.