ES, your view of the Constitution is, ahem, anhistorical.
The Framers believed that individual rights could never be "grants" of the State. For what the State has the power to grant, it has an equal power to rescind. Therefore, to the Framers it was "self-evident" that certain rights had to be unalienably vested in human nature itself by God Himself, and the State [Leviathan] cannot in any way abridge, interfere with, modify, or revoke these natural (God-given) rights. That's what makes them "unalienable."
So the Second Amendment is not the grant by the State (i.e., by the Constitution) of a RKBA. It is the recognition of a pre-existing (i.e., God-granted) right to self defense — perfectly consistent with the DoI's language of the rights of life, liberty, and [defense of] property.
If you think that the Second Amendment is in any way a "positive" act of the State, establishing an individual right, then pray tell me: What "positive" rights do the 9th and 10th amendments establish?
ES wrote: "If the government removes your Constitutional right through the Constitutional Amendment process, you no longer have that Constitutional right."
Again, your view is anhistorical. [Are you of the legal positivist school by any chance?] Not even the Constitutional Amendment process can legitimately interfere with rights that are unalienable. The defense and preservation of the sovereign rights of We the People is the entire raison d'être of the Constitution in the first place.
The Framers believed that there is nothing in the world that any government can do legitimately, or with justice, to interfere with the unalienable rights of its citizens — BECAUSE they are not the grants of government, but of God!!!
For the State to transgress against the natural unalienable rights of their citizens would be prima facie proof that the State is operating as a tyranny.
ES seems not to have considered the worldview, reasoning, culture/education, and intentions of our Founders/Framers in making his claims.
It seems to me that the whole Constitution and DoI are not documents establishing a government for the purpose of granting rights and controlling the citizenry, but rather documents recognizing, as you said, the inalienable rights of the citizens and controlling the GOVERNMENT.
Real;ly, Betty....a long-winded rant about something I DID NOT SAY is not very typical of you.
Who said the Constitution “grants” these rights? I very clearly, in very plain and simple English, said “SECURED BY.”