You seem to be aware of the principle that a constitutional amendment is only as strong as its implementation.
Your disagreement about the local slope of change of gun rights aside, eventually there will be no guns, people, or gun rights. I was just trying to highlight the futility of the argument.
Even if someone wanted to do the work you're inviting them to do, stacking up legislative restrictions in purchasing or ownership vs expansions in law such as open carry or carry concealed laws or expansions of gun ownership generally, (do increases in guns per capita offset decreases in gun ownership by household?) then what... they get you to agree on a weighting function and then you do math together?
What about the part where it appears you predict that gun laws are a ratchet, applying change in only one direction? Do you actually expect to be able to reasonably come to agreement with your interlocutors in this thread about how the future will end up?