[philman_36]

That aside, there were all sorts of governments in history out of mind that never had written laws, nor common law, though one would have to say they had citizens. The point is, there has to be something, either through positive law or custom, to be a citizen of before you can be a citizen of something.
That "something" is natural law and it's outside of positive law or custom.
Once again, you use natural law when it suits (keep and bear arms) and disregard it when it doesn't (natural born citizen).

[Tublecane]

“That ‘something’ is natural law and it’s outside of positive law or custom.”

Now you’re not reading what you quote (it’s not that long, go ahead and try). What you should have highlighted was “there has to be something...to be a citizen of.” But then your point, that that something is natural law,” would make no sense.

The idea that you can be a citizen of natural law is idiotic. You are citizens not of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions.