Your second point is backward. The Constitution is a compromise between various ideological preferences. If it’s impossible to achieve sufficient consensus to change the bargain by amending the Constitution, that means you can’t change the bargain. You can’t subvert the requirement of a strong consensus for amendment by way of mechanisms (legislation, judicial interpretation) that require lower levels of consensus.

That artificially constrains the entirety of gun control to the question of constitutional amendments, and confusedly insists that other constitutionally valid reforms (e.g. congressional and state legislation, court rulings) would be 'subverting' that process. Which is deeply confused for reasons I certainly hope I don't have to explain out loud in a serious conversation.

Congress has drifted from the institutional norm of resorting to constitutional amendments for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of gun control. Insisting that an extremely difficult channel for reform is the only valid way to seek reform begs the question in favor of a deeply disputed interpretation of the second amendment, and disingenuously insists that other channels of reform aren't on the table, for reasons that have yet to be explained.

>Or we can acknowledge that passing constitutional amendments in the 21st century requires amount of political capital that it is no longer possible to attain in our system.

Why is this? What, concretely, has changed? Note that Constitutional amendments are supposed to be difficult to pass.