No you can't. Arms ownership is a right because one has a natural right to self-defense. Arms are the basic tools of war one uses to defend oneself. One does not use weapons of destruction for self-defense purposes.
If you want to get particular about what are natural 'rights', tell me how and where do you obtain these "rights" in nature? Does a does an African doe have a 'right' to life over the lion that kills it? Or does the lion have a 'right' too to kill the deer for food? Should we find some means to "arm" all prey to rightfully have an equal chance to defend themselves against their predators? If this seems absurd to you, then where
do you propose this "right", or any one for that matter, comes from?
Also, how do you figure that a gun is a means for personal "defense"? Shouldn't you be investing in bulletproof vests instead? In fact, without having to check, I'm pretty certain that the sales of bulletproof vests are somewhat insignificant to those of guns.
Where did I say that laws should never change?
Quite a few places, starting off with your first response when you asserted that, "...you do not “re-interpret" the meaning of it, because then it becomes a free-for-all."; Or, "...if you try to structure the Constitution to be up-to-date, you’ll find it will be outdated within ten years. ...", "Our constitution, by contrast, is timeless...", among others. Although you mentioned that you recognize an amendment "process", you clearly emphasized the futility of ever trying to change it or even to redress the issue in any meaningful way.
Regarding multiple interpretations problem:
Most of the "other interpretations" are from people who have read the amendment without knowing anything about it. In terms of scholarly interpretations, from what I've read, most scholars on the subject are in agreement regarding how it was written.
And where does your authority come from to be the wiser? What assures you that anybody who interprets it different than you, must not "know anything about it"? And in respect to scholarly controversy, you seem to believe that everyone is on the same side of all issues which is very naive. See:
Constitutional Controversies] for example.
There probably is no exact way to know if a majority support a cause or not, but one can generally gauge it I'd think by the number of people protesting. If it's a small group of yahoos, then most probably do not support them. If on the other hand, you end up with thousands in every major city and also in smaller cities and towns, then that is different.
If you can't come up with a precise formula to determine the good from the bad, every gauge of estimation is useless and an insufficient reason to just allow people arbitrary powers to decide when it is right to assert a bad government and a right to overthrow it.
Hussein was a known tyrant for many years, who tried to acquire nuclear weapons and had used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. Plus his government was modeled off of Nazi Germany (in a way, he was like a Middle Eastern Hitler). Your asking how does one "know" he was a tyrant is kind of like saying how does anyone "know" Vladimir Putin is oppressive or that Hitler was a tyrant or what have you.
Then I can assure you that you seriously lack an education yourself with respect to politics and governments in general. Hussein was communistic, not national socialist [Nazi]. In fact, the United States is the only government that comes close in comparison to Hitler's conception of government, if any should. What we are all aware of is that Hussein had 'supposedly' though likely, used chemical weapons. So did all countries in World War I, including the United States. It is also played down that he attacked Iran, a country that the U.S. doesn't like and overthrew their very government causing even more deaths than the few thousand that Hussein was ever guilty of. And again, what is your reasoning that the U.S. should be the police of other countries maintaining nuclear materials? It is this very fact that the U.S. holds the dominant power on world destruction that gave it its 'superpower' status.