“Your statement is what is idiotic. One is a citizen through natural law, not ‘of’ natural law.”
One is many things through natural law, but not a citizen. Like I said, citizenship requires something to be a citizen of, and the custom and positive law to create that something does not exist by nature.
Besides, the way you phrased yourself, apparently as a result of misreading my post, you said one can be a citizen “of” natural law. Those were your words, not mine.
“And once again you deny natural law when, and as, you choose”
Who says it’s my choice. You assume, but I don’t see why I couldn’t accuse you of the same dishonesty, in the absence of verifiable knowledge. It seems pretty convenient, to me, for this suddenly to become such an issue for people otherwise looking for anything to use against a president they hate. Not that that’s how you’re using it, but, again, I could just as easily accuse you of it as you accuse me.
How do you know, by the way, that affirming the right to bear arms is to my liking? How do you know I care about guns, particularly, aside from that I’m posting on a conservative site. How do you know I wouldn’t really, really love something to use against Obama that would demand his removal from office? I’d love to kick him out. My interests flow in the opposite direction from my principles in this case.
I deny natural law when it doesn’t apply, as to being a citizen of a particular modern organized state under a particular constitution. You admit that natural law doesn’t apply to everything, hence the need for positive law. I agree. One of the things positive law provides us with is something to be a citizen of.
“To believe what you say then you have to believe...
My ability to keep and bear arms isn’t of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions and positive laws.”
Failed analogy, different matters. I don’t need a government to have the right to bear arms. It would be convenient to have someone to proect it, but it’s not necessary. The right remains, even if all the guns in the world were stripped of their rightful owners.
Being a citizen of a government, contrariwise, demands that there be a government to be a citizen of. It’s not inconvenient to be a citizen by nature alone: it’s impossible.
“You don’t believe that, as you’ve indicated...
@Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms.”
True, I don’t believe that. I do believe, though, that you do not have the natural right to be a citizen of the U.S. You have a right only because of positive law. It is a positive right more firmly grounded than the “right” to collective bargaining. But it depends on there being a U.S. Constitution nonetheless.
Like I said, citizenship requires something to be a citizen of, and the custom and positive law to create that something does not exist by nature.
So, according to you, and going by your emphasis of the Greek Polis and that civilization must predate civilization, then the nomadic Plains Indians weren't citizens of any sort, not even of their own tribes, simply because they didn't live in cities and due to them having no written positive law.
Got it.
I deny natural law when it doesn’t apply, as to being a citizen of a particular modern organized state under a particular constitution.
Yes, you have to set and qualify the parameters for what you will and won't believe.
I don’t need a government to have the right to bear arms.
That's because you accept some instances of natural law and deny other instances when they don't support your argument.
It’s not inconvenient to be a citizen by nature alone: it’s impossible.
Despite @your earlier usage you give evidence with that statement that you really don't understand the expression "term of art".
Term of Art
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning.
Natural law
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.