View Single Post
Old 09-06-2019, 10:54 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,963
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Can we then explore your position that RKBA is a "natural right"? My understanding of natural rights in the context of the Constitution is as follows:

It goes on at length, but does not mention anything about guns as a natural or unalienable right. Now, the Constitution mentions RKBA explicitly. But again, in the context of a well-regulated militia. So I'm trying to understand how you get from guns being an unalienable right while hand waving away the entire context in which they are explicitly mentioned.
Maybe I am not following you.

Your link talks about the Declaration of Independence. You can certainly use that as a way of understanding the Constitution, in fact, you probably should. But the DoI says that there are inalienable rights, that governments exist to secure those rights. So when they set up the Constitution, they were doing what the DoI said they should be doing - setting up a government to secure natural/inalienable rights for the citizens of the USA.

In the 2A, they said "we have to have a militia, therefore we need to be clear that the government has to secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

If you want to understand the Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence, that's the context, and that's what they did.