From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.
Indeed, but they also provided a means to *amend* the Constitution ... 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratification by a 2/3rds (or 3/4th? sources I checked aren't clear) majority of the States, isn't it?
So, at least theoretically, you could amend the amendments, or even (effectively) repeal them *if* you could get Congress to pass the Amendments and then most of the States to agree.
Certainly, the Founding Fathers did *not* include the Bill of Rights ... that's why the Constitution was *amended* ... because they thought it was important and/or conditions had changed.
According to Wikipedia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York *rejected* the Second Amendment!
(Yes, I know, that's *not* the Second Amendment we're talking about ;-), it actually became the 27th Amendment)
The Founding Fathers (like most nations Founding Fathers) knew that whatever they wrote in the Constitution only applied to the situation they faced at the time they wrote it ... and, even though they tried to foresee any reasonable developments, realised that the situation *would* change, so they provided a way to change the Constitution to allow it to deal with changes.
The 2nd Amendment was one thing they felt that needed spelling out *after* they wrote the original Constitution.
Now, just for the sake of argument, say that Congress passess an Amendment that says the 2nd Amendment is to be modified to exclude specific classes of weapons ... including Assault Weapons, say, and large capacity magazines ... and that 3/4 of the States ratify it.
That would make it *constitutional* to pry those Assault Weapons from people's cold dead hands, would it not?
Assuming that such an Amendment came to pass, and I would agree that it is unlikely in the US of 2013, then that would mean that anyone who disagreed with it would be in opposition to the Constitution ... and *might* feel that they had to secede ... just as the Southern States did in 1861.
With 3/4 of the US States against any secessionists, and probably close to 3/4 of the military, it would get real nasty, real quick.
And, like the 1st ACW, the side with the numbers would probably win ... and the side with the majority would almost certainly be the side the rest of the world would side with.
I make no value judgements as to which side might be more *morally* correct, but surely the Constitution is *always* subject to amendment? Including the Amendments?
The Bill of Rights was added in the first 10 amendments, and, if I recall, the reason that they were added was that many were concerned enough that these rights were not included in the original draft, that they insisted on them in order to pass the Constitution.
Means to amend the Constitution are there, and amendments have occurred, sparingly. The reason that the process to amend the Constitution is difficult is to ensure that changes are not made at the drop of a hat, and that any changes must require overwhelming support.
And sometimes, they do make mistakes (witness the 18th amendment and the 21st which 'fixed' it).