There are all kinds of rights and all kinds of "
law" (both officially unofficially). You have statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, policies, case law holdings, etc., etc. AND you have all kinds of "R (r)ights. There are civil rights, human rights, inalienable rights and
unalienable Rights.
Grammarists don't understand the legal differences in R (r) ights. Here is a discussion that will clear it up:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the p
resisters.freeforums.net
If you aren't going to be part of that conversation, I'll give you the Reader's Digest (though that won't make you competent enough to argue one way or the other since I cannot cover every base in one posting).
Unalienable Rights are unlike any other Rights spoken about in any other historical document, constitution or set of laws. The United States is the only nation in recorded history that established a constitutional Republic, acknowledged Rights given by a
Creator and limited the government so we could enjoy those Rights without becoming a theocracy.
It does little to claim you have a Right to keep and bear Arms to protect your Right to Life IF you are allowing the masses to determine the value of your Life and to what extent you can go to defend yourself from criminals and traitors. People may like playing semantics, but I look at it like this:
If I died today and God asked me to justify my actions, I do not bow down to man when I have a mandate from God to be responsible for my Life and Safety regardless of man made law to the contrary
If I had to defend myself in a court, I would remind them of
WHY the Second Amendment was passed according to the author of that Bill.
Common sense dictates the bounds I'm legitimately bound to in defending Life, Liberty and Country.