I have always been fascinated by the Bill of Rights, but as a self diagnosed cultural relativist, I object to the Constitution's emphasis on Natural law/rights over rights derived from the state. For example, the right to life implies the right to preservation of life, which through the second amendment implies the right to bear arms. Thus, if we believe in absolute, unchanging human rights, then the right to bear arms seems set in stone. However, the current philosophy of moral/cultural relativism shows that moral codes can be changing across cultures and over time, so the right to self defense/bear arms is not fundamental, but only reflective of the Founders. Should the Constitution's language be updated to reflect modern philosophical thought?
This is not a well researched thought. I am hoping that someone can help me clarify my position, and then refute/support it. Thanks!!