[robertpaulsen]

"The Founding Fathers spoke of natural rights ("unalienable Rights")"

I intentionally said "natural" rights to distinguish them from "inalienable" rights. Yet you just squish them together. There is a difference.

"Regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern concept of regulations put in place by the federal government."

I never said it did.

[NCSteve]

I intentionally said "natural" rights to distinguish them from "inalienable" rights. Yet you just squish them together. There is a difference.

So let's see some examples of what you deem to be "natural" rights.

The entire basis of the constitutional republic that the founders created was that the rights of the state never supersede the rights of the individual, hence the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The attempt to semantically separate rights into categories sounds like lawyer-speak for an attempt to subvert that principle.

[Political Junkie Too]

I intentionally said "natural" rights to distinguish them from "inalienable" rights. Yet you just squish them together. There is a difference.

I don't recall seeing your definition of natural rights, so it is true that I'm arguing from assumption. Let's correct that.

I separated unalienable rights from civil rights. I take unalienable rights to mean the rights that a person is born with, that exist by virtue of the person's existence, and that can only be taken away by ending the person's existence. Civil rights are those granted to the person by society when entering into a compact with others in the society.

I'm curious to know how you distinguish between unalienable rights and natural rights.

-PJ