They don't need to do that. The Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment already do. What the candidates need to do is nominate Justices who recognize that.
All the wishing in the world won't change the Second Amendment into something that anticipated that some arms might not be suitable for keeping and bearing by the people. If you want ANYTHING in the Constitution to have meaning, then you must permit EVERYTHING in it to have meaning.
Don't tell me that you believe that the First Amendment does not protect freedom of speech over radio, television, telephones or the internet. And don't tell me that the Constitution automatically changes to regulate such media simply because people today decide that our Founders would have.
Many of our Founders would agree that slavery is an abomination. But the Thirteenth Amendment was still required to eliminate the situation that was clearly incorporated into the Constitution.
George Washington thought that it would be a bad idea for any man to be President for more than two terms. That precedent lasted for a century and a half. Today it is the law of the land ONLY because the Constitution has been amended to enforce that limitation. It didn't become law just because it was generally recognized as sound policy.
It doesn't matter what I think, but what our candidates think. While they all talk about appointing strict constructionist judges, they don't specify how those judges would be expected to act on 2nd amendment issues of gun regulation.
For example, Fred Thompson is good on guns, but he also voted for some forms of gun control during his Senate term, and has said that he thinks states do have the right to regulate guns, for example to establish gun-free zones at public colleges (he opposes those zones, he supports the state's "right" to impose them).
Mitt opposes the DC gun ban, but seems to support the right of Massachusetts to pass some forms of gun control.
Of course, at the time of the founders, the 2nd amendment was only binding on the federal government.