I studied natural law and its roots in theology though and I just disagree that specific rights like bearing arms (which is arguably a collective right although the SCOTUS reversed course in 2008), the right of a free press, the right to be compensated in the event of eminent domain, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, etc. are really rooted there. Have always viewed natural law as the underpinnings to most of our "10 commandments" type laws (don't kill, don't rape, etc.) and many of the constitutional rights that have been read into the due process clauses of the 14th and 5th (privacy, right to direct the upbringing of your own children, right of two consenting adults to get it on behind closed doors, etc.) more than the actual enumerated rights, although many of them (cruel and unusual punishment, unreasonable seizure, free exercise) certainly find roots there as well. I guess most moral choices trace back to natural law and maybe that's a good way to break it out -- just don't think the right to "bear arms" in our constitution is really rooted there. There is nothing fundamental about that right really and I don't think any modern society forming a new constitution (including our own) would make a point to include it. Have always viewed it more as a poorly worded and datedly-conceived attempt at a power check on the national government that has since become something else entirely: a bastardized "right" to own a dangerous object. I also don't think it is really tied to self defense, at least in the sense it is applied today where it is one person keeping guns to shoot another citizen that may mean to do harm. The defense part is more national defense, which the framers meant to be handled by calling up well-regulated state militias. Self defense is generally a defense to what would otherwise be a crime (assault, murder, etc.) and one does not need to "bear arms" to exercise that freedom. In fact, one might argue that the term "bear arms" is strictly limited to the military context. In other words, a guy with a pistol under the bed or a hunter with a rifle may have a gun but is not "bearing arms" unless he/she is serving in a military capacity (or at least that is how some have read it over the last two centuries). I don't think frontier culture that came later changes that fact -- indeed, that is where the citywide gun ban was born if I'm not mistaken.

It's a weird amendment and I do think we would be better off without it, although to Joey's point that ship has sailed and efforts are better spent on reasonable controls and regualtions.
[Post edited by WahooRQ at 06/15/2017 09:13AM]