Still seeing need / perception of need for federal militia (or national armed force) as contrary to unalienable rights of individuals.
You truly haven't a clue. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed."
It is why
gov'ts are formed - at least gov'ts that hold individual rights rather than collective rights as supreme.
National defense and the Justice system protect and uphold those rights
against attack foreign or domestic, respectively. That's basically the only two legitimate functions of gov't at the federal level. Local and state police forces who feed the local, state and federal justice system, are the other legitimate function.
As far as how it relates to vaping and smoking in public... I was responding to Andria's comments regarding the founders' view on majorities, which then relates back to how majorities are allowed to trample the rights of minorities - smokers and vapers - iow, they shouldn't be able to do that given the founders' ideas and the Constitution. According to the founders, mob rule shouldn't happen.
The 'democratic part' (the word "democracy" never is mentioned in the Constitution) was about the fairest way to elect representatives. But... those representatives were not supposed to enact laws that violated rights by majority votes or otherwise. And other than the obvious exceptions, they didn't for about 120 years.
It is only when 'promote the general welfare' became 'provide for the general welfare' that "public good", along with public health became an
- problem (tip of the hat to bigdancehawk) - where the principles of individual rights were trumped by the utilitarian 'greatest good' - never any part of the founders original intent nor the Constitution. Even national defense was intended to protect individual rights, since only individuals have them, not 'society'. Society doesn't exist and doesn't have "rights". No group does, only individuals - by their nature as humans.