The natural right is the right to self-defense, including that of home and property.
That is an inalienable, insoluble and inherent right granted by God, not men. The Second Amendment makes it clear that for a free state to be secure - a well regulated body of armed citizens, properly trained in the use of their own arms (which is what a militia is) the right of the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms therefore MAY NOT be infringed.
Sadly - you continue to state that our Rights can be *reasonably* regulated, which turns inalienable Rights into privileges granted by government. Which is what you are all about.
for the first time in the history of our Republic, that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
That is bullshit. That ruling is not the 'first time in the history of the Republic' that it was understood that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms and to defend themselves, their homes and their nation when called upon to do so. That truth was roundly understood in total by a people who never imagined their posterity would become so stupid and foolish into making the state their monarch or that they would become wholly devoid of common sense.
The Second Amendment is worded in a very peculiar way.
No, wrong. It is very plain. Only people like you who seek to infringe, regulate and abolish that Amendment make statements that the wording is peculiar. For 145 years, for the majority of our history - no one ever considered that the Second Amendment was worded 'peculiar'. It was not until the government decided to limit and infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms that clever arguments from lawyers began to supplant and convolute plain wording to fit into their redefinition for the purpose of regulating a right into a mere privilege.
I think the Second Amendment, on its face, is concerned with the collective defense, not individual self defense. And because of that, I do not for a minute believe it bars the registration, licensure and insurance of firearms. To the contrary, I believe it anticipates it.
The Constitution only anticipates the inevitable effort the State will make to abolish Rights and enslave a people to despotism and tyranny. It is why the Constitution is a document that sets the parameters of what Government is permitted to do - and expressly defines what it may not touch and what limits are placed upon it. It does not address what the people, the citizenry are limited or permitted to do. It only addresses the constructs and operation of Government and explicitly details what it may and may not do.
It is only people like you who assert that the Constitution created and administers Rights and therefore the courts may interpret the plain language of the Constitution to mean whatever they say it means at any given moment at the behest of any particular lobbying group and ideology they are beholden to.
The Constitution sets the limits and reach of government, period. That is why the words 'shall not be infringed' were placed there. Government has no Constitutional authority to infringe upon, limit or regulate arms, or the possession and use of arms by the people. In addressing what government may and may not do in order to head a free state, a citizenry disciplined in the use and maintenance of their own arms is necessary and therefore their right to keep and bear arms MAY NOT BE INFRINGED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT.
It is tyrant wannabes like you who tell us that our rights are not absolute and subject to whatever limits and restrictions the government deems necessary to put upon them.
Then you dress it up as Constitutional, declare the wording 'peculiar' and tell us that the courts can nullify and redefine what the Constitution itself plainly states outside of an Amendment, passed and ratified.
