Sure it can. The "Bill of Rights" is just a term for the first ten amendments. The 21st Amendment reads:
"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
Nothing in the Constitution forbids doing the same to the First, Second, or any other, should enough Americans agree on the point.
The 28th Amendment could read "The President shall be selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, and all redheads shall be put to death" and it'd not only be the law of the land once ratified, but there'd be no legal recourse except another amendment. Even more fun; include a "The Constitution may no longer be amended" as an additional provision.
(Of course, you have to get that through the amendment process, which is fairly obviously unlikely.)
Strictly mechanically speaking, the constitution can be amended by a certain majority of voting in a national campaign, and those amendments can override any other amendment as the voters see fit.
You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?
The mistake so many people make is thinking that government is the lowest level. It is not, government is downstream of culture and is a reflection of that cultures values. Without a unified culture that agrees on certain prerequisits of government, for example from this case elected representation, there can be no functional government.
I mean, the South tried exactly that sort of approach over slavery, which their secession declarations deemed fundamental.
Which were the price the Antifederalists demanded to accept the Constitution as a whole.
Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states.
Supermajority, and only after a supermajority of the Congress starts the process or a supermajority of states calls for a constitutional convention. Even then, abrogating any of the Bill of Rights also abrogates the original deal, making the rest of the Constitution and its additional amendments null and void.
In particular, other amendments have changed part of the text of the original Constitution. How does that not also "abrogate the original deal, making the Constitution null and void"? That argument should apply even more if we're talking about the body rather than the first 10 amendments, shouldn't it? Why do you single out the Bill of Rights as being unchangeable?
I also made an argument in my previous post. You completely ignored it. Would you answer it?