I know I'm helping dog-pile a long-dead horse...but federal recognition of -some- rights does not mean it is morally acceptable for our government to put controls over other rights. Else, you'll have to admit that, say, Canada, Mexico, or basically all of Europe (or, indeed, most of the rest of the world) is correct in their gun laws and self-defense laws...as they procedurally and legally implemented said laws.
Limiting access to an inanimate object based on its potential for abuse, as opposed to punishing ACTUAL abuse, is an identical line of thinking that anti-gunners (anti-soda, anti-alcohol, anti-fast cars, anti-"hate", anti-piracy, anti-whatever) use. The fact that we were fortunate enough to have -some- rights called out for non-governmental interference (interference which happens anyhow) does not make interfering with other rights correct.
The fact that we have certain rights called out as constitutionally protected and beyond majority control (religion, press, speech, assembly, petition, KBA, due process, jury trial, etc), means that we have long answered the question of whether those things are, actually rights or not.
That certain other things (alcohol for example, counterfeiting) are specifically subjected to government control means that as a society, we have answered the question and decided that these things are not
actually "rights". Certain conduct is specifically prohibited. There is no right to give aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war, nor for our citizens to wage war against their own nation. There is specifically no right to consume alcohol. That IS subject to whatever level of control or even prohibition a State wishes to impose on it.
Certain other rights are specifically called out and recognized as rights, but are subject to specific curtailment under certain conditions such as the constitutional ability to suspend the right to Habeus Corpus during times of war or emergency.
Of course, the constitution specifically says that the enumeration of certain rights does not render unnamed rights void. But it does leave open to debate what is a right vs what is not a right, vs what might be a right that is properly subject to curtailment under certain conditions. It leaves a lot to the individual States to decide and there is no reason that one State should have to decide exactly the same as another.
Having long since answered the question about whether owning and carrying arms is a right (it is, long since enumerated and recently at least partially ruled as such by the SCOTUS), that debate is largely off the table. Whether guns do more harm than good, whether they should or should not be banned, etc, etc, etc, are no longer valid questions. KBA is an enumerated right.
Alcohol however, is specifically and constitutionally subject to whatever limits a State wishes to impose. Whatever you or I may personally think about alcohol, whatever any particular theory of rights would suggest or demand, the practical answer is that there is no right in our nation to consume alcohol. Those who wish to change that are in a similar boat as those who wish to ban guns: ConAmd. Though in the case of alcohol, State level recognition of a "right" to consume alcohol would be sufficient, and not in conflict with federal constitutional provisions. So it is legitimate to have the debate about what level of control is proper for alcohol.
As for the size of sodas, I lean towards believing that is a personal matter. But might a case be made for regulating the size of sodas that can be sold under various circumstances? Maybe. I'd oppose it in Utah. But, in NY? I don't really care. I don't see it as a fundamental infringement of essential, basic rights. Indeed, should a State (say the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) choose to implement some kind of socialist medical care, I think a very logical case can be made for regulating lots of otherwise private conduct on the grounds that it causes expensive health problems. I oppose socialized medicine precisely because it opens full wide the door of my most private choices to legitimate government concern. My libertarian streak doesn't care what you do as long I don't have to pay for it. But if I have to pay your medical bills, then every choice you make that has material effect on those medical bills becomes my legitimate business.
It is my conservative side, that looks a bit beyond the simple and immediate and direct "costs" that libertarians would concede, and thus believes it is proper for society to limit or ban conduct based on its general or macro effects (ie costs) on society.
I believe the use of recreational drugs, and of gambling, and prostitution, impose enough externalities on the community that the community is within its proper rights to limit or ban that conduct. In these cases, I believe history has demonstrated that it simply isn't possible to beat back the costs by enforcing only against the individual whose "private" conduct then leads to some direct harm to someone else.
Others will disagree, and this is where I think federalism is wonderful. If some States want to be very libertarian with others being conservative, and still others being liberal, and some being quite statist, I'm ok with that so long as a few, core, essential, enumerated rights are respected nationwide. I'll vote with my feet and live in a State whose culture and laws align with my views. Others could and presumably would do likewise, and we'd have a lot less contention as a nation.