(I typed a long response to this only to have it disappear with an accidental mouse click...ugh. I'll try to recapture the essence of it.)
I do not mean to suggest that the problem is simple or binary. I'm an academic, and my tendency is to try to break down a complex issue to its fundamental core, and then work up a better understanding through layers of nuance supported by evidence. Unsurprisingly, this issue generates a considerable amount of emotion in some, and while this is completely understandable, it is also not the basis for sound policy-making. That this emotional response is frequently exploited by politicians for short-term advantage ("never let a crisis go to waste") does not help. Whatever sound policy might be developed must emerge from objective evidence; continued reliance on emotional response will only exacerbate divisions without creating meaningful solutions. And even with the best possible policy in place, there will always be situations that defy prevention or solution within its framework.
I also do not mean to suggest that the Framers of the Constitution were infallible. Certainly, a number of their decisions were compromises made to contend with the issues of the day, known to be flawed even at the time, but seen as necessary to allow the Union a chance to survive in the tenuous early years of the republic. Several have been changed by amendment, a process that has existed from the beginning, laid out in Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress....
Finally, my view of the nation is similar to that so eloquently expressed by Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address, recognizing a deeply divided nation but maintaining faith in the institutions and processes that had allowed the country to thrive and prosper as the sole means available to continue with that progress. The whole document is worth reading, but I will will simply quote one small section:
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.