Natural rights may be reasonably regulated. Inalienable rights may not -- not without individual due process.
Actually it sounds pretty arbitrary to me. The founders enumerated certain "inalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independence. They never intended it to be an exhaustive list and they never offered any indication that there were "inferior" rights. You are attempting to draw some distinction between an inalienable right and a natural right and then claiming the ability to regulate the latter. However, you offer no objective criteria for the distinction. This leaves the whole matter up for subjective definition by whoever happens to hold the reigns of power. The founders called that tyranny. This is precisely why they enumerated rights and why they did not distinguish between greater and lesser rights.
I would offer that the founding principle of this constitutional republic is that the "commune" may not regulate individuals' rights and that there is no such fine distinction as you offer, arbitrary as it is.
I can say all those under 10 cannot own a handgun, but I cannot say all those under 10 may be incarcerated.
So are you offering that the distinction between your adjectives of natural and unalienable is adulthood? Again, this is completely arbitrary. If you assume the right to say that a 10 year old cannot own a handgun, why would you not similarly assume the right to incarcerate him? What objective principle distinguishes your claims?
Does that sound like lawyer speak?
Absolutely. Arbitrary and baseless redefinitions of language and context are the lawyer's primary tools of the trade.
Because I would be infringing on his inalienable right to liberty without individual due process. If he murdered someone, and was convicted in a court of law with due process, I may take away HIS liberty -- but not ALL 10-year-olds.
"However, you offer no objective criteria for the distinction".
Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights and CANNOT be removed without individual due process. Right there in the 14th amendment. All the rest are natural rights. There you go. Easy enough for even you to understand.
Now you don't like that, fine. Give me another inalienable right besides life, liberty and property. You did say inalienable rights were not limited to those. I assume, therefore, you have more? Let's hear 'em.
The term "people" of the Second Amendment refers to all free persons. It does not refer to unemancipated minors (subject to the will of their parents), nor convicts, parolees, or the criminally insane (all slaves of the state).
It seems clear that the Second Amendment never applied to those who were not "free persons" (nobody could have possibly intended it to arm slaves!). What exceptions would be "needed" if the Second Amendment were written "Any and all free persons have the right to own and possess, as well as construct, manufacture, or otherwise acquire without theft, any and all such weapons as would be suitable for use in a posse or militia. Free persons also have the right to transport such weapons and to carry them in ready condition on all public rights of way and in all private places where the owners give consent, in addition to the right to give, sell, barter, or otherwise transfer such weapons to other free persons. Any government action seeking to infringe these rights shall be void."
Actually it sounds pretty arbitrary to me. The founders enumerated certain "inalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independence. They never intended it to be an exhaustive list and they never offered any indication that there were "inferior" rights. You are attempting to draw some distinction between an inalienable right and a natural right and then claiming the ability to regulate the latter.
However, you offer no objective criteria for the distinction. This leaves the whole matter up for subjective definition by whoever happens to hold the reigns of power.
The founders called that tyranny.
Well put Steve. -- The socialistic/communitarian 'idea' that majority rule decisions can decide which of our natural rights can be 'reasonably regulated' without due process? -- has no constitutional foundation whatsoever; -- its simply been dreamed up to justify the infringements that exist.
This is precisely why they enumerated rights and why they did not distinguish between greater and lesser rights. I would offer that the founding principle of this constitutional republic is that the "commune" may not regulate individuals' rights and that there is no such fine distinction as you offer, arbitrary as it is.
Arbitrary and baseless redefinitions of language and context are the lawyer's primary tools of the trade.
Don't forget the propagandist. That 'trade' is alive & well on FR.