The bottom line is simple.
1.) You can read scholarly sources and see that interpretation of the 2nd over decades is all over the place. Legal interpretations could change. One reference is The Second Amendment: A Biography. If you don't like Waldman, at least he has references to all the typical court cases until last year so you can pick some other source.
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1433156016&sr=8-6&keywords=2nd+amendment+books
2.) You mention the age to drink, drive, etc. I was personally part of the rowdy crowd who was A1 in the draft and fought to get the 18 year old vote. I also was part of those who ALMOST got the ERA ratified. We did see Title IX passed. In other words, new amendments and changes are possible - so holding my breath is no problem. I've seen it happen when everyone said there was NO WAY.
The legal eagles always have the same argument that "Last "week, year, etc" some court in "Washington, Arkansas, etc." held that "gun use cannot be restricted" because "etc., etc.". All those cases are documented. There will be another case next year.
We know that the number of households possessing guns is going down, and lately the number of deaths bottomed out and started going up again. At some point, public values will change (like LGBT), and there may be enough momentum to do something rational. The Brady Bill was a step in the right direction, and it was law for a while.
IMHO, the NRA made a logical error to put their eggs in the basket of "carry permits", because my "license" is no more than an expanded version. If people are familiar with something and see a problem, then using the familiar tool generates less opposition. Politically, the "license/permit/certification" process provides a solution that could work.
= new reply since forum marked as read