I wonder if ever there came a point when SCOTUS did, say, try to abolish/heavily modify the 2A,
While some might think otherwise, the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to repeal/modify the US Constitution.
That is beyond their legal ability. It takes a constitutional amendment to modify/repeal any portion of the Constitution, including its amendments.
The precedent is quite clear, and while I'm not a legal scholar, I think its plain enough to anyone. Look at Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has the responsibility to judge laws against the Constitution, they do NOT have the right to judge the Constitution, itself. They cannot, for instance rule any amendment "unconstitutional" since it is part of the Constitution, itself. Prohibition (an amendment) took another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. The Supreme Court could not repeal Prohibition, nor can it repeal the 2nd Amendment. ONLY a Constitutional amendment can do that. (or a complete constitutional convention, where EVERYTHING is up for grabs).
Likewise, Congress cannot simply pass a law and repeal part of the Constitution. SO, on that matter, rest easy.
HOWEVER, what the Supreme Court CAN do is not strike down (or simply refuse to hear cases) that violate the Constitution. A lack of enforcement will have the same practical effect, but leave the wording of the 2nd intact.
The court can, at any time reverse any of its previous rulings. Just as they did with rulings on slavery. Today, we have Heller, and other cases, and a silm majority ruling stating we have an individual right, independent of the militia.
A future, 'more enlightened" court could change that.
Our Constitution was intended to be a "living document" in the sense that there is an amendment process written into it.
It was not intended to be a living document in the sense that it's language is open to constant re-interpretation dependent on current social climates.
And this is where we have a problem. Some folks think what was written then means whatever they say it means, today. Some of us think it means what it meant when it was written.
IF you want to change the meaning of certain things in the Constitution, go right ahead, and USE the amendment process (which is what it was made for).
If you want to change it by a court's definition (or worse, by the popular media definitions), you are in the wrong, in my not so humble opinion.
I did like your idea of a well done TV show, used to show the TRUTH, (which includes our side), but there is a large problem with that, aside from just affording to make it. And that is getting any major media to actually AIR it.
Free advertising to any and all anti-gun causes is routinely provided, under the mantle of "news".
Pro gun messages have been refused, not just free press, but refused PAID airtime. They are big on so called "fairness" when its their side of an issue is being stifled, but won't even accept our money to let us tell the other side.
Its not just a double standard, it is outright bigotry, but I'd be willing to bet you would be labeled a "racist" if you try to point that out...
(and yes, I know "racist" had NOTHING to do with it, but they will find a way to play that card, and stick you with the most "hated" of labels, if they possibly can).