Yes. Though I do not believe the inalienable right to defend oneself includes the use of a gun.
"Continuing from there, as a human being skilled at the use of tools to solve problems, it seems obvious to me that I have the right to keep and bear whatever tool I may find necessary or expedient in protecting (in this case) my right to life. If I choose a firearm, it is in no way a concern of anyone else, unless or until I use my weapon to violate the rights of another."
You have a natural right to use whatever weapon you can get your hands on. But you have no God-given inalienable right to a full auto M4.
"The fact that due process is not followed in all cases should not be held up as anything but an embarrassment."
Perhaps you can point out an instance where it was required but not followed. You've lost me.
Though I do not believe the inalienable right to defend oneself includes the use of a gun.
Well, Slim, that's where we differ. I believe that, if I have a right to defend my life, I have the right to use whatever means, tools or methods are available and necessary to achieve that goal, as long as I do not violate the rights of an innocent. I'm glad I don't have to rely on you to defend my life or my rights (though let me point out that I have sworn to risk my life defending yours).
You have a natural right to use whatever weapon you can get your hands on. But you have no God-given inalienable right to a full auto M4.
Nonsense. I have the God-given right to use WHATEVER means at my disposal to achieve that goal, as long as I do not violate the rights of innocents. Do you even realize how incongruent your arguments are?
You've lost me.
That's the understatement of the year.