So positive law is, in this case and others, a recognition of natural law. Your ignorance of the natural right to arms notwithstanding, the existence of a positive law is meant to reflect an understanding of natural law. It is not a case where it is one or the other. The right always existed. The law recognizing it had to be written.
No liberal, as usual, you read into things that are just not so. Positive law which is any law passed by man, however, as in the natural born citizen clause, it is directly construing or speaking directly about natural law that the Founding Father's of the US Constitution meant it to be. Natural law is the intent and meaning behind A2S1C5. The purpose of A2S1C5 was to prevent split allegiances for the president who hold highest office in the land. The right to self defense as quoted, I've always believed is a natural right to kick the poop out of any attacking liberals against one's well being. What gave me pause, is it a natural right to bear firearms. It certainly is a US Constitutional right to bear and have firearms to protect against liberal and authoritarian tyranny.
As it should, but liberal always try to turn laws against nature by attempting to make it into something else.