If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.
They wouldn’t be law-abiding if they kept the guns after they were illegal, would they, and police who don’t enforce laws can easily look for more suitable jobs, right? 😉 (snark… kinda)
The complete ban is an ideal end state–I admit implementation isn’t easy and anything in between would be a good start. It could take hundreds of years–no confiscation at all, just the gradual reduction as generations don’t get new guns and the old ones slowly get destroyed. Luckily, the second amendment doesn’t protect any important rights, so nothing’s lost by its repeal. Modern gun ownership is mostly about entertainment, heirlooms, and fantasy scenarios, which can be easily managed via less dangerous means. But with a very rare practical use case of deer and varmints, which is why I’m still fine keeping basic rifles around (Winchesters, not AR-15s). As a Pest Control Amendment, I’m still all for the Second.
EDIT: Admittedly, I agree with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I feel it needs to be repealed ASAP. The amendment doesn’t mention guns at all, just “arms”. As written, it applies equally to handguns, machine guns, longbows, halberds, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and anthrax. The second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear all of these things, all because of well-regulated militias that don’t really exist anymore but kinda sorta live on in the National Guard to some degree. With that interpretation, it’s a dangerously idiotic amendment, but frankly the other interpretations I’ve seen seem very preciously crafted with the purpose of reaching saner conclusions, rather than just interpreting it as written. The only thing protecting us from the full impact of this amendment is five justices looking the other way, and that may not last.
I agree with your ideal end game, as well as with the fact that firearm ownership today is almost entirely entertainment and fantasy. That said, the United States’ police force is way to well-armed, which, and this may sound crazier than I think it is, justifies the armed population of our citizenry to an extent. Heirlooms are important; I don’t think anyone’s possessions that they’ve had for decades should be taken away, nor should collections be broken up. Heirloom also implies that it’s an antique, which is important to consider also. It’s only the modern, mass-produced guns that need to be destroyed. You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.