First, Madison explicitly says trial by jury is not a natural right or even a legal right, but a right given by social compact, so that takes care of "Bill of Rights == natural rights".
Anyway, I've been surprised to see that, in fact, a lot of 18th century English guys seem to think that bearing arms is a natural right, or that "life, liberty, and property" are also accompanied by "the means to defend them". Personally, I think this is a historical accident that comes from predating the standing army and the existence of police, among other things, and having occasional wars and revolutions on home turf about succession followed by attempts to disarm previously hostile classes. But, still, a natural right given to you by God?
To my mind, if it's a "natural right" in this kind of framework, you have it in the "state of nature" or the Garden of Eden prior to human society. It's a fundamental human right and if you don't have it you can protest. So things like life and liberty make sense. Having an AR-15 is more like trial by jury - it's a right granted to you by the State in order to protect your fundamental rights. Similar with trial by jury - it's a rule of the game that the state plays to help protect your right to liberty rather than something dictated by Almighty God.
Anyway, what do you guys think? No commentary on guns specifically in this one.
|< Fear my 10 pin bowling 5Kill5 | Oh how I envy American students. >|