I think we're into semantics here.
You said "natural right." The Founding Fathers spoke of natural rights ("unalienable Rights") "endowed by their Creator" to include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution is addressing civil rights ("in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity").
The things that we think of as being "regulated" in civil life are not rights laid out in the Constitution, if you think of regulations as restrictions such as licenses, permits, government controls, etc. If you go back to my post #23 and follow the link, you'll see that during Hamilton's time, the term "regulated" that precedes "militia" was referring to the concept of a trained military force, or more generally, training. You might have heard the term "Regulars" used in the context of soldiers, meaning that that they were trained in military discipline.
"Regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern concept of regulations put in place by the federal government.
-PJ
You're arguing much more than 'semantics' PJ.. -- The communitarian's among us simply do not agree with the principle of "unalienable Rights".
-- To them, all rights can be alienated by majority rule.
~Any~ individual right can be regulated by the democratic process. The public good trumps constitutional freedom.
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.