I don't think any of it is set in stone
Which is why we have an amendment process in the first place. I think, if following all the rules for ratification, an amendment to dissolve the Fed Govt and replace it with a king would be legal under the Constitution.
OF course it would have to pass, and be ratified.
It does bring up a question, does the Supreme Court have the ability to rule on the Constitution? I think not. Their function is to rule on laws, made underneath the Constitution, not on the supreme document (and its amendments), isn't it?
Our Founders counted on the enlightened self interest of the people to keep government from doing something monumentally stupid, and the ability of an armed populace to be the final check, should the government refuse to listen to the people. For the most part, so far, it has worked. But I'm beginning to have my doubts for the future.
And mostly, its about the ability of the people to act in their own best interest. For that, they have to know what that is, and then do it. Controlling the information the people use to base their decisions on goes a long way to ensuring what those decisions will be.
There are two recognised processes for changing the Constitution. The Amendment process, and a Constitutional Convention.
The Amendment process has, to date, always focused on a single basic issue, per amendment. Any change could be wrought through the amendment process, and any section could be repealed via the same process. Prohibition is a prime example.
A Constitutional Convention is the other constitutionally recognised process, and while it is claimed that such a convention could be called only for a single issue, the language of the constitution allows the delegates to said convention to determine what items will be up for change. And, it is the sitting Congress which determines who, and in what proportions the delegates will be. SO, quite literally, everything is up for consideration at a Constitutional Convention.
If enough delegates voted for a King, and enough of the states ratified it, a king we would have.
We are making decent, if slow progress in recent years, undoing the decades of work by liberal anti-gun legislators and administrations. Note that when things were going pretty well in the nation, one of our big concerns was domestic crime, and by extension gun control laws. Since 2001, and the general recognition that ownership of personal firearms is not the huge overwhelming problem it was made out to be in the decades before, anti gunners haven't had much luck advancing their agenda.
We have other, much more important and time critical things we, as a nation ought to be focused on. Pushing for an amendment to strengthen gun rights will ONLY serve to bring the issue to public attention again, and it is the other side that has the loudest public voice. I don't see it as being advantageous to our cause.
We chould continue to work quietly, through the legal system and grass roots activism. When it gets in the public eye, in the "mainstream" media, it becomes an emotional issue, and the other side's emotional arguments gain strength from it.
The nation's general mood is shifting. Many are fed up with what has been going on, and what is planned for us. And the politicians are seeing it. Some are even beginning to realize that there is a limit to what we, the people, will put up with. The rats are scurrying, but they have not yet begun jumping off the sinking ship.
The time to push hard is not yet.
Soon, perhaps, but not just yet.
