The last paper I have written, Revision of the Bill of Rights, part III, has garner interesting opinions and perspectives on the matter. Yet, I think there were details that have been missed, which is not surprising. They were very tiny details that can easily be unacknowledged.
When I wrote, "impose," it was a matter of a balancing act between different people's rights. For example, if you press yourself onto a wall, there is only a certain amount of force a wall can hold. This is imposing one's self onto that wall. As civilian self-defense imposes on a fair trial because civilian self-defense is not in the Bill of Rights, but fair trial is in the Bill of Rights. Civilian Defense is in common law, which means it is to the States to decide a few questions, "What is a Civilian? Are there cases where self-defense does not impose on fair-trial?" Then the important thing to note is that the Fifth Amendment gives military, naval, and militias the right to override the balancing act between the two. The passage reads as such, "...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..." Whereas, there is nothing written on civilian self-defense in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, there are more questions to ask, "Does retired people from the military, naval, and militias have the right given by the Fifth Amendment to carry and still protect? Why is there this specifications between civilian defense and non-civilian defense?" These are the questions one must think about and think of any other questions that may arise.
Moreover, the Constitution was not the first document of the United States. The Articles of Confederation were before the Constitution. George Washington wanted to retire, grow his crops, and become a farmer. Yet, the prior documents were not keeping the States together. So, the Founding Fathers of America drafted the Constitution. The Constitution is a guiding principle of how States should operate together, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." Thus, the purpose of the last article I written was to introduce new ideas to the conversation, so people can think and debate.
Last, the paper was adding to the debate between Originalism and Living Constitution. It is a debate on how to read the Constitution. Do we read it as the words stated in it (Originalism)? Or does it morph through time (Living Constitution)? I have debated for Originalism because if we leave all laws to the emotions and sociality norms of our time. We may lose the founding principles of the Constitution to populist opinions.
If there are more questions and ideas that are jogged by this paper, write. George Washington stated once, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then the dumb and silent we may be lead, like sheep to the slaughter." To read and be able to have a conversation is one of the founding principles that enable us to commence in new ideas.