radiomike, on 18 January 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:
The Constitution, through negative liberties, is what allows pluralism to flourish. Pluralism will allow for competing interests and value systems to co-exist while prohibiting any one single value system to 'win-out'. A belief in abolishing the second amendment and banning guns for everyone is not pluralism in action, it is majority (mob) rule.
The Constitution provides for majority rule, which is a necessary component of any democratic system; what it protects against is majority tyranny. One group getting what it wants one time on one issue is not majority tyranny. Majority tyranny results when one factions always gets everything it wants without regard for the minority and where the minority has no power at all. This must take place across issues and across time, not at a single snapshot in time on a single issue. Why do you think it's so bloody hard to amend the Constitution? The process it requires, combined with the geographic, demographic, and political diversity in this country inherently prevents majority tyranny from happening. If a large enough majority, across a large enough number of interests is somehow assembled to abolish the Second Amendment, then almost by definition it is not tyrannical. The only way that's tyrannical is if that coalition agrees on a singular position on all issues and then proceeds to legislate and get 100% of what it wants on all issues. The Founders never intended for the majority to never get what it wants--they simply wanted to protect against a single majority getting all of what it wants all of the time.
You're conflating a normative judgment about a democratic outcome with the process by which that outcome is produced. You dislike a hypothetical outcome, but that doesn't make the process tyrannical, or mob rule, or undemocratic. Sure somebody can make the argument that the Second Amendment is necessary to ensure the continuance of democracy (to which I would vehemently disagree), but it does not logically follow that if the Second Amendment is abolished that the abolition itself is undemocratic.
Lastly, even if we were to assume your argument is correct, it leaves you with quite the logical conundrum: if the Second Amendment being repealed/abolished through the Constitutionally-provided for amendment process is mob rule or majority tyranny, then the Second Amendment itself was the result of mob rule or majority tyranny and is no less valid than its abolition.