"How could the Constitution 'provide' for amendments that infringe on its principles?"
Article V "provides" that.
"Why do you want government to have a power you agree is a bad idea?"
I don't, as I've written.
"Not really; - government takes the power we allow them to have. -- We have met the enemy, - he is us."
The lawful extent of that allowance is spelled out in the Constitution. Propose an amendment if you wish to reduce it. Something along the lines of the existing restrictions on amendment in Article V, but prohibiting the repeal or modification of the first ten amendments would be something I could support.
"Only if the amendment is constitutional in itself. Our right to arms is inalienable, and cannot be 'repealed'."
Nothing is "unconstitutional" unless prohibited (or not authorized) by the constitution in question. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the word "inalienable" used.
"Doing violence to 'language' is of concern when infringements of rights are at issue? That's quite the principle."
If you are not willing to use language as a means of common understanding, no discussion is possible.