The scenarios are a wee bit different. The removal of both, however, are centered around the idea that both involve hurting other people (except in the cases of suicide naturally, which I choose to ignore: suicidal people can always find a way to get themselves killed). Regardless, the issue is academic; people seem to be against slavery these days and lo and behold, it's not very common. If people one day are against guns, I see absolutely no reason why they should still be around. Morals change, and laws should change along with them. I fail to see how "tyranny of the majority" is any worse than "tyranny of tradition".
Funny you should mention that.
The status quo. The burden of proof generally lies on the one making an assumption of existence. Otherwise I could just as well claim that is well within my natural rights to stab you in the eye, and maintain that I have that right until proven otherwise. Remember, we're talking about natural rights here, not the implementation of law.
First explain to me why a weapon specifically designed to kill is the only effective means of self-defense available. Apart from that, the efficiency of a gun as a tool for self-defense depends greatly on how well armed the opponent is. It's theoretically possible to be assaulted by a M1 Abrams against which a firearm would be useless, but I wouldn't propose allowing people to carry HEAT rounds around. The logic reminds me of the whole cold war mentality. Sure, criminals may or may not be able to get guns regardless of how easy or hard it is for the general population, but another factor to consider is that they may be less inclined to kill you if they know you'll probably not try to kill them. If killing you is their intention, you won't stand a chance whether you're armed or not.
I must say, I find it quite ironic that you are adamantly against the majority deciding something, but quite keen on the idea on the guy with the biggest weapon implementing his views by force. "Defending your freedom" is the PC version of the same concept. It's essentially why there is a military and a police. The alternative is that the entire population is turned into an unorganized militia (command structures are, after all, another form of leadership which apparently cannot be trusted). We're getting dangerously close to anarchy here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it wasn't for people generally being selfish jerks).
Well, since I don't actually believe in natural rights, given that they are so frequently changed, added, removed and ignored and often completely arbitrary, I doubt you'd like my answer to that question. The only way you'll be able to convince me that there are universal, natural rights, and that these happen to include whatever issue you wish to debate (guns in this case) would be to show me that they will always be accepted as such. Good luck with that, I reckon there's at least a couple of billion years left for the universe before it is crushed or grows too hot or cold (depending on the rate of entropy vs rate of growth) to sustain life. If not, they'll just be a passing trend, and 500 years from now, people might look back and think how stupid some were to say that having a gun was a natural right, in the same way I assume you look back and thinking how stupid some were to say that owning slaves was a natural right. Like I said, morals change. As does our perception of what these "natural rights" are, which, at least to me, is a strong indication that there are none; only commonly accepted morals at one specific point in history.
It's pretty awful, yes, but I prefer the current majority deciding over the majority from decades or centuries ago deciding. Actually, my first choice for government would be the enlightened despot, or Plato's republic, if it worked. The problem is that even the best of leaders tend to be corrupted eventually and/or fail to step down if they are no longer fit to lead (which leads me back to my thesis that deep down, everyone really are total bastards, some are just better at fooling others and themselves).
