"Our right to arms is inalienable, and cannot be 'repealed'."
Doing violence to 'language' is of concern when infringements of rights are at issue? That's quite the principle."
Already answered. If you wish to discuss, learn that specific words mean specific and distinct things.
"Inalienable is used in the Declaration to define our rights to life, liberty, & property, as noted in the Constitution."
Where noted? Cite the the article and section, please. "Inalienable" does not appear in the Declaration, either. "Unalienable*" does, but that does not define any rights (don't know why you claim that, we have not disputed any definition of rights, only of "unconstitutional.") Here is the context (from the Declaration):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note:
1) The source of the rights thus claimed is not any constitution or other instrument of human government, but the Creator of men, i.e. God.
2) It is the "Right of the People" to alter (amend) or abolish governments. "Right" only when said governments become destructive of rights, but within the power of the people in any case.
Even a cursory study of human history shows that most governments have acted against right, even making such wrongs part of their constitutions. (The most famous example in ours being the Article IV requirement that persons "held to Service or Labour," i.e. slaves, are to be returned to their masters across State lines.) That was a deprivation of the unalienable right to Liberty endowed upon those persons by their Creator. And it was part of the Constitution, hence "constitutional."
The 2nd Amendment contains no provision prohibiting its repeal. Article V provides a method for that repeal. Just as the 18th was repealed, the 2nd can be. Hopefully their is enough support for the 2nd to prevent that, or if it happens, enough support for another secession. Both would be constitutional: repeal, under Article V, or secession, under Amendment X.
*UNALIENABLE: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. -http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_u.htm
The 2nd Amendment contains no provision prohibiting its repeal. Article V provides a method for that repeal. Just as the 18th was repealed, the 2nd can be.
Dream on.
Why do you -want- to believe The 2nd can be repealed? What constitutional principle is served by allowing the repeal of one of our basic unalienable rights?
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition - Letter U
Address:http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_u.htm
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That which is contrary to the constitution.
2. When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.
3. The courts have the power, and it is their duty, when an act is unconstitutional, to declare it to be so