The article ends with:

As Laurence Tribe reminds us, when there is “a deep national
dissatisfaction with the way constitutional law . . . has . . . resolved a matter,”
“We the People” seek constitutional amendments.15 Four times in the past,
Article V has been used to reverse Supreme Court cases deemed deeply
flawed. Heller could occasion a fifth.

The problem with such an approach is that we already have such an Amendment. It's perfectly clear. Sure we could add "individual" before "right", but if they admit it's individual but can be infringed pretty much whenever Congress wants to do so, that would be pointless.

Many states, Nebraska for example, have added or amended RKBA provisions to their state constitutions. In Nebraska's case they have been ignored, the State Supreme Court has refused to enforce them. They haven't invalided a single law which denies and/or infringes "the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes”. The same thing could happen, probably would happen, at the Federal level.

Then what?