That is indeed the correct way to say it. We have rights as a matter of natural law. The Bill of Rights just recognizes some which the US government cannot trample upon.
I think that's correct. And the term I've seen used is codified. So the second amendment codifies the right to bear arms. This doesn't mean the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. That right is a natural right. It just mentions that right specifically (codifies) when pointing out the "protection" the second amendment is supposed to provide.
...the right to bear arms must not be infringed...
So the second amendment protection is about not infringing on our natural right to bear arms. If you look at the first amendment you'll notice the same type of language. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, it says something like "... congress shall pass no law which abridges the right to free speech or assembly...". Probably didn't get that one quite right but hopefully close enough.
I also find it a bit interesting the terms they decided on back them. Notice they say "the right to bear arms" not "the right to arms". One might be able to argue that if the second amendment said "the right to arms" then that would mean the government (ie tax payers) would be responsible to arm any citizen that didn't have the means to arm themself.
A ways back, when Charlie Rangel when in congress, he was working on some law "to recognize a person's right to a home". This got me very worried as I assume the dems were trying to have the tax payers provide homes for people.
That is indeed the correct way to say it. We have rights as a matter of natural law. The Bill of Rights just recognizes some which the US government cannot trample upon.
I think that's correct. And the term I've seen used is codified. So the second amendment codifies the right to bear arms. This doesn't mean the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. That right is a natural right. It just mentions that right specifically (codifies) when pointing out the "protection" the second amendment is supposed to provide.
So the second amendment protection is about not infringing on our natural right to bear arms. If you look at the first amendment you'll notice the same type of language. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, it says something like "... congress shall pass no law which abridges the right to free speech or assembly...". Probably didn't get that one quite right but hopefully close enough.
I also find it a bit interesting the terms they decided on back them. Notice they say "the right to bear arms" not "the right to arms". One might be able to argue that if the second amendment said "the right to arms" then that would mean the government (ie tax payers) would be responsible to arm any citizen that didn't have the means to arm themself.
A ways back, when Charlie Rangel when in congress, he was working on some law "to recognize a person's right to a home". This got me very worried as I assume the dems were trying to have the tax payers provide homes for people.