How can we regulate guns ... ?

Incidentally, these tighter regulations would be rendered pretty much irrelevant in the next few years by the rise of technology like 3D printers.Instead of pushing for tighter gun regulation and control, why not address the root problem - that there is something in modern society that gives birth to a violent mindset.

That may be true for the most part, but the CT shooting doesn't fall into that classification.

Yes.

Yes, but the objective is not to reduce the amount of gun deaths. The goal is to reduce the total number of deaths from violent crime. So, you'd need statistics that show, for example, that in England there is a lower percentage of violent-crime-related deaths than in the U.S.

Does the federal government have the constitutional right to regulate guns, though?

But that's not the meaning of the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment. "Arms" in this context means firearms, not simply "weapon." That would seem to be the interpretation of the founding fathers, at least.E.g., Federalist paper 46:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."I'm pretty sure James Madison was not referring to escrima sticks, but rather to firearms.

There was no Continental Army during the conception of the Constitution:"A small residual force [of Continentals] remained at West Point and some frontier outposts until Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1784."The Constitution hadn't even been drafted by 1784. The U.S. Army was already in existence when the Constitution was written.

Are you sure no one actually says anything about both of those, though?

Umm, no. I think what the quotes Faith provided demonstrate is the founding father's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In other words, no, we can't twist the 2nd Amendment so that it only covers "arms" in the sense of clubs, etc., because that's not its meaning.Now, one could argue that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, or heavily modified. That's an altogether different approach; presently, the 2nd Amendment means that any excessive regulation of firearms is unconstitutional.