Actually there is a mechanism built into the structure of the Constitution that creates a giant Presidential loophole making an effective end run around the amendment process.
The TREATY MAKING POWERS of the Executive branch trump nearly everything. The Framers knew that it was going to be important for any future President to make agreements, binding agreements with foreign governments. The check & balance to this power is the requirement that any treaty be ratified by the Senate (only the Senate -- not the House, too) in order to become the Law of the Land. It's a power that cuts across the entire constitution and it's legal because it is a part of the original ratified document.
So here is the nightmare scenario: Hillary becomes the US President in 2008. Her husband Bill becomes UN Secretary General at the same time. They agree on an international treaty that bans worldwide possession of all small arms of any caliber or type of action, for the goal of ~snicker snicker~ "Global Peace" and the recently installed DEMOCRAT SENATE ratifies it...guess what boys and girls? It's LAW and it's LEGAL. Now from a sociological point of view, whether it would spark another American Revolution or if all we'd get is a sample of New Orleans but on a much larger scale I can't say. But I suspect the sheep will bleat and whine and turn their guns into the government....
Even a treaty cannot override the protections of the Bill of Rights. Treaties can create new governmental powers, such as the power to regulate migratory birds, but they cannot violate the Constitution itself.
The provision in question reads:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That last should be parsed as " any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding". Not "any Thing in the (Constitution) or (Laws of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding". When referring to itself the Constitution says "this Constitution" except in the prescribed Presidential oath of office where it's spelled out as "the Constitution of the United States"
So while Bill and Hill might try that scheme, an honest Supreme Court would not uphold it.
And many, many folks, including many in law enforcement and the military, would not obey or enforce it.
Not me! Molon Labe!