I’m no scholar, but I thought I recalled if there was a constitutional convention, then that would open all of the bill of rights to possibly be altered.
I don’t remember where I heard this, but for some reason I had the impression that if one is open for change then all amendments could possibly be altered at the same time.
Short of a Mad Max scenario in which the living envy the dead, you will not see a constitutional convention. We have a far more modest and orderly process for amending the COTUS via a single amendment. The ERA almost made it in the 1970s, but fell short on state ratifications.
Could attempts to repeal, actually cause it to be strengthened, like the militia phrase removed?
The removal of the militia clause wouldn't strengthen the text of the amendment. Current law construes the militia clause to be introductory and not a limit on the right.
Interestingly enough, I think the recent demands to repeal the second, the proposers are admitting that the 2nd guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals, and not the militia.
It's reasonable to see an implicit acknowledgement in the desire to repeal the amendment. I would not conclude that repeal advocates think a
correct reading guarantees an individual right. If you speak with them about it, you may find that they only mean to reverse Heller, which they see as an error.
EDIT - The following isn't directly responsive, but intended to explain why you don't want things reworked generally.
The basic constitutional framework for government was rooted in an emerging and very seriously considered parliamentary reality in England. The idea is that your worst enemy, even when very popular won't have all the levers of power merely as a result of the most recent election.
Beyond structure, we have a number of rights that are periodically unpopular. Rights to trial, against self-incrimination, unreasonable or warrantless searches, of due process, freedom of speech, association, etc. become targets of popular rage periodically. Remember how upset people were about the OJ Simpson trial? Alan Dershowitz spent a lot of time explaining to people on the tv why apparently guilty defendants get the benefit of standing rules.
Those rules and amendments took a lot of time and effort to assemble, and they protect us from an awful form of government, democracy. It would be a terrible waste to toss that protection in the trash.