Right To Bear Arms Under The Constitution

Should our right to bear arms have limits?

According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, “fundamental rights” may include, but are not limited to, the right to vote, the right to run for public office, the right to marry or divorce, and the right to fairness in our criminal justice system.

Webster’s New World Law Dictionary defines a fundamental right as “A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference”.

Our Constitution was originally written without any "Amendments", but we were not satisfied that these original words were clear enough to convey the actual intended purpose, so some changes were necessary and the "Amendments" were added. Since these "Amendments" can't really stand on their own, they must be a further explanation or clarification of some other part of the Constitution, right?

So what are these "Amendments" amending?

Let's take a look at the original Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution reads, in part:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Is The Constitution A Living Document Which Should Change Over Time?

How far can we stretch the U. S. Constitution?

In a recent interview with U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the CBS news program 60 Minutes, correspondent Lesley Stahl raised several questions regrading the U. S. Constitution, since our U. S. Supreme Court is charged with interpreting our Constitution and normally making a final decision on any Constitutional issues.

Justice Scalia practices a philosophy of what he calls "originalism", meaning that he chooses to interpret our Constitution based on the meanings and intentions of the people who ratified it over 200 years ago. He went further to say, "Society doesn't change through a Constitution."

Even though our Constitution is certainly an enduring document that we must all defend each and every day, our Constitution is not a "living" document that requires amending each time a rogue judge wants to create "rights" not actually in our Constitution or when we want the Constitution to say what we would like for it to say?

The words in our Constitution should be interpreted with the same meanings of the people who ratified it?

Is the U. S. Constitution Outdated?

Constitution in plain English - No Interpretation Necessary

I certainly don't think we need a "new" Constitution, but I do think we need some concerned citizens and a few decent law makers who understand the one we already have and will stand up and defend it.
There are several different Oaths which our Constitution or other U. S. law requires in different situations. I would like for us to take a look at some of these Oaths:

Oath of Citizenship

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."