Personal Defense, But to What Extent?

This op/ed at Forbes  by Lawrence Hunter seeks to highlight the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have to say not only does he highlight it, but he paints a bright neon orange target on it. I don’t know if I have read a more succinct treatise on the Founding Father’s intent with guaranteeing an armed sovereign citizenship. They knew that they were placing an individual’s absolute right to self-ownership (which self-defense is a major part of) over any supposed “collective security” and they were absolutely a-OK with it.

People say the Constitution is either an outdated document or that it is a living document that is subject to change. While I do believe that it is a living document and can/should be changed I hold the Bill of Rights as almost Gospel. Not being sacrilegious at all, but those 10 statements are meant to guarantee our God-given rights that cannot be “amended” away. Additions after the fact are absolutely OK if ratified by 2/3 and do not negate any of the original 10.

I was in a Facebook “discussion” today and made the statement that nothing trumps an individuals basic rights, even if it means that whatever action it applies to might cause harm down the road to society or implied harm to an individual. The person that I was discussing with stated that it was ludicrous to believe in an absolute such as that. What I believe/like may not apply to another person depending on where they are in their life and what they want out of it.

My question… am I the only one who still believes in absolutes? And with that, our absolute 2nd Amendment rights to bare arms against a tyrannical government?