The fundamental concept of every Constitutional Convention is that everything under the jurisdiction of the body of government being reviewed gets reviewed, and that "someone" makes a decision on what to recommend to the "Ratifying" population as the way to move forward from there. "Someone" in this context, of course, means the CON CON delegates. And while it is impossible that the NRA could be excluded from our CON CON, it is also inconceivable that it would or should ever have sufficient representation to have any significant impact on the final document voted out of the Convention, and forwarded for Ratification. NRA only and always has been effective when it's able to work its manipulative magic in a "divide and conquer" environment. As only one small voice on a single issue, in a massively complex and detailed discussion/debate, the most that NRA could ever hope for from our CON CON is just another voice on another issue.
All of that vast power effectively neutralized, and this society is free to move on from there. So the key is popular ratification, and any "rigged CON CON" would be dead coming out of the starter blocks.
A handful of wealthy, middle aged, white, men huddled in secret in some downtown location was seemingly seen as being appropriate in 1787. On the other hand, there is no part of that formula that has not radically evolved in the centuries since then.
As their CON CON was appropriate to their time and place, so will ours be to our present circumstances.
What I picture is the political extremes being recognized by denominating 20% of Convention Delegates as being assigned to the clear right wing, and 20% to the clear left wing. And anyone being recognized, either by group affiliation or individually as beloning to either wing gets counted among that allotment. The Republican Party is right wing, and the Democrats, left. NRA, Right to Life, Chamber of Commerce, and right wing billionaires, because they fund the Republican Party get counted against the right wing allotment. Daily Kos, womens rights, gay rights, environmentalists, and left wing billionaires go on the left side of the ledger. Etc.
And the middle 60%, then, could only come from the true middle. Meaning, one would hope, not so much predisposed, and yet clearly with the mental firepower to help the rest of the country reach the kinds of solutions that are going to be needed to find our way through the stalemated challeges that have been offered nothing but lip service year after year. Real living, breathing, thinking Patriots in the modern sense. Folks level headed enough to know that not that far down the path that we are headed on lies disaster for our race and Planet, on the one hand. And cognizant of the fact that we cannot and must not take any departure so radical that change, alone, dooms our entire grand effort to failure.
Guns? Not so much. Fixating on a diversion like that, I feel confident, would only drain time, energy, and good will better invested in important considerations. My own best guess is that the current Second Amendment would simply be too divisive to get past any but the most preliminary agendas. As passing time pressed for progress, and public anticipation motivated grand alliances, and truly substantive dealmaking, who would there be on the biggest stage in modern history willing to trade any significant degree of credibility for anything as inconsequential as a Convention shattering war over elevating "firearms protection" to the same level as the truly monumental issues being there and then setteled?
We have a world that looks nothing like it did in 1787!