Granting your argument, that would mena that the people of Oregon would always retain the right of self-defense against agression. However, outfitting with a particular weapon is not intrinsic to self-defense. Provided some reasonable weapon is freely available, other weapons could be regulated. Else we descend to the "why can't I own a nuclear tipped ICBM" argument.
However even beyond that, living in a society with any government at all necessarily entails some surrender of natural rights to the collective. Without this, the government would not have any powers. Today, for example, the Constitution regulates the formation of private armies used in overseas adventures. At the time of the Vikings or the Huns, the people of Europe were under no such distraint.
The basis of the Bill of Rights is that the rights are not *granted* by the Constitution, but merely *recognized* by it.
The Bill of Rights and Constitution not only do not grant natural rights, they also DO NOT RECOGNIZE OR ENUMERATE natural rights. Rather, they prohibit the Congress from passing laws that infringe upon them.
No change to the Constitution itself will ever change our natural rights.
Natural rights cannot be changed by the Constitution, because they are a part of who human beings are. Humanity is not malleable to the law. However, the Constitution can be changed to determine how we exercise certain rights in society, or if we are giving the government the power to exercise them for us. If all just governing power derives from the collective body of the people and their natural rights, then the people have the right to determine how much power that shall be and how it shall interface with those rights retained by the people individually. Without the ability to surrender some natural rights into government power, we could not have eminent domain laws, bankruptcy courts, an Army and Navy, etc.
The American situation is further complicated via Federalism, whereby Americans have granted the Federal government certain powers, and the State governments certain other powers, retaining to themselves various rights against the power of either one or the other or both of these levels of government.
However even beyond that, living in a society with any government at all necessarily entails some surrender of natural rights to the collective.
A natural right cannot be abrogated. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Please read Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Payne, etc. Certain rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken by any society, vote, dictator, etc. They are inherently present for each individual because they are an individual.
If all just governing power derives from the collective body of the people and their natural rights, then the people have the right to determine how much power that shall be and how it shall interface with those rights retained by the people individually. Without the ability to surrender some natural rights into government power, we could not have eminent domain laws, bankruptcy courts, an Army and Navy, etc.
We can only surrender individual rights as individuals. The "collective," as you put it, does not have the legitimate power to do so. I could go on and on discussing this, but I suggest you start by reading Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Thomas Payne.