In this country, founded on religious principals, the right to bear arms was at first because of the fear that if that right were not granted, a suppressive government armed could suppress all the rights of the governed by force, and that the forefathers of our country had the foresight to see that as good as we could get, we could head in the wrong direction if the rights of individuals were not held up over the rights of the rulers, and that the governors would in effect be held to a level playing field by law, the supreme law of this country.
Little did the forefathers know at the time that the right to Bare Arms was just as as important.
You might ask why it was just as important to bare arms as it was to bear arms, strange? No, not really. You see, the forefathers bathed many times in the nude, not even thinking that it was not an inherent right, that in fact, it was nearly unmentionable as to the right of privacy, explicit and many times implied in the practice of social nudism not mentioned by any sanctions of law. It was just a matter of turning away, that is what many did to give one room in a river to bathe nude. Women bathed many times in a river nude in that day. Men also.
But no one paid attention to the natural right that would be debated much later.
It was not a question of one's right to Bare Arms, but a question of the utmost right to have one's own privacy protected against a scandalous reputation such as to cause one an economic loss of a job or position important to the moral leadership of this country. Nudity had nothing to do with immoral.
It was the right of privacy and the proctection of it that was the number one moral cause, not of nudity, but of privacy./
You know, that might sound weird, but in reality, that was what the forefathers knew inherently, that the private right to bathe nude should have been a natural thought as say the right to bear a gun against a bear in the woods.