From what I’ve read, the right to own guns wasn’t about guns per se; it was something of an idealogical stake in the ground to affirm one’s right to protect oneself and one’s property, and a warning against the government’s overreach of its power if it ever stepped too far—something the founding fathers seemed to feel keenly. They seemed to be consciously constructing a system to protect against the constant danger of any group accumulating too much power (even the people, as the French Revolution demonstrated). I think if we’re going to make an update to the laws based on changing societal conditions, we need to be careful to reexamine the principles and figure out how to reapply them for modern times (assuming they’re still valid), rather than throwing out both the application and the principle.

However, I think your point that “gun ownership isn’t some inalienable right granted by God” is a really valuable one—and one I wish conservatives would be willing to look hard in the face. The implication I hear in it (which I think is correct) is that the conservative gun-rights side has tended to equate applications of various principles (different for different times and different cultures) with the foundational principles themselves. And that leads to lots of talking past each other (same thing happens on the liberal side in different ways, by the way).