Hmmmmmm... 'well-thought regulations' -- when was the last time anything like a well-thought regulation came out of our federal govt?
'to act in the interests of the majority of its citizenry' -- I suspect the majority of the citizens of the US have never been personally confronted by firearm violence. If the violence (although tragic and deplorable) only affects a vast minority of the populous, how is reducing it in the interests of the majority?
Majority Rule -- While many may believe that our form of government is based on Majority Rule, it is not. Our system of government is designed to protect the minority from oppression by the majority (and by extension the govt). That is the whole premise behind the Bill of Rights as well as many of the other amendments to the Constitution.
The biggest hole I see in the argument you present is it assumes the ability to regulate firearms; specifically that those already 'In the Wild' can be regulated in some way. It would be interesting to see how many people are injured or killed on a yearly basis by firearms that were legally purchased within 30 days of the incident as opposed to those that have been around longer. This would provide an idea of how tightly regulating the purchase and sale of firearms might affect firearm violence. If it is as I suspect, that the vast majority of incidents happen with firearms that have been in public hands for a long time, regulating the sale or limiting the types of new firearms will do nothing to prevent such tragedies.
In situations where municipalities are declaring it illegal to own firearms or firearm components and demanding that they be turned in for destruction, only those who are not likely a threat would turn them in, and probably only a subset of them at best. This would accomplish a few things in my opinion, none of the good;
-- Turn generally law abiding citizens into criminals; either because they were not aware of the law or how it applied to firearms or components they already owned, or because they chose to not turn their personal property in to the govt.
-- Leave firearms in the hands of those who intend violence; criminals will not voluntarily surrender firearms just because there is a new law that says they should. If they are already predisposed to violate laws against violence, they are not likely to be concerned about and additional offence.
-- Infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of the individuals who desire to own a firearm. Where does this stop, today, firearms, tomorrow speech or religion, eventually all liberties. It can be a very slippery slope once we take the first step.
Ultimately, constitutionally, all of this is irrelevant. With reference to civil rights or liberties, there is no protection afforded 'society' anywhere in the document or any of its amendments. The protections of rights and liberty are all directed at the individual. This suggests that the framers of the document placed a higher value on the liberties of the individual than the society. These were people who had been subjected to tyrannical government and knew intimately what pain that brought to the individual. The purpose of the Constitution is to prevent tyranny within our shores. It is to protect us, individually. The more we or our proxy, the govt, chip away at it, the less protection it will afford us, until one day liberty is gone and we find our necks under the boot of a dictator. To borrow the language of Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! -- I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! 
--Sky
