Could have done the same with the Eighteenth Amendment, if desired; just go on modifying the interpretation of “intoxicating liquors” until it excluded not just low-alcohol or medicinal beverages but beer, wine, fortified wines, and so on throughout a “more positive perspective”.
But it made more sense just to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment as unworkable and undesirable in the America of that day. And ultimately, it will make more sense to do the same with the Second.
In the meantime, I don’t object to advocating interpretations of the Second Amendment that allow more rational and workable regulation of legal firearms. In the long run, though, as I said, the whole concept of private gun ownership as a fundamental Constitutional right no longer has any bearing on the civic purpose it was originally designed for, and serves no other useful civic purpose, so I vote we ditch it.
Private gun ownership can continue to exist, as it does in many other developed countries, without demanding for it a unique and distorting constitutional-right status that we don’t award to ownership of cars or swimming pools or rocket launchers or any other specific type of material object.
Did you specify in your poll that the hypothetical repeal would be accompanied by laws actually banning their guns? If not, I think a “no” response to that question is both law-abiding and reasonable.