> 1/3 or more of the population disagrees / Ignoring, of course, the fact you'll likely have half the states in the country trying to start a Constitutional convention or secede or just stop listening to the Federal government

Why would a state that voted to ban guns try to secede over banning guns? The whole starting premise of the conversation here is that 3/4 of states already agreed to an amendment.

It is implied of course in this hypothetical that the country actually wants to do it and is literate about the data and cares about people not randomly pointlessly dying etc. and decided to become a modern civilized country already.

> No right to privacy

Right to privacy isn't one of the bills of rights... but also you don't have privacy about sales of anything anyway, you need to report sales of things for taxes, for one, whenever asked. The main thing here is banning sales, not ownership.

> no right to assemble

? Nothing to do with the conversation

> no right to a jury trial

?? What on earth? Even less to do with the conversation. The parentheses explain nothing about how this is remotely relevant.

> And the black markets that will come up quick.

Black markets require something to sell. If legal guns aren't for sale anymore, where are they getting their stock from? Random reasonable citizens aren't just selling their guns to criminal syndicates, and you can't just whip up advanced firearms in your garage.

> I mean, they banned alcohol for a decade or so

1. Like half the world has banned guns, where unlike alcohol, things worked completely fine. So they are clearly totally different situations.

2. There's a pretty obvious REASON why they're different, too: You can make your own alcohol with some fruit, and buckets, and a bit of copper tubing. You cannot casually make your own AR-15 with scrap wood, plumbing pipe, and eyeglasses or whatever.