The distinction I have drawn between natural and civil rights seems to make much more sense, and to have implications that correspond to the real world. Additionally, if I understand correctly, they correspond with the thinking of the men who first made the notion of rights something the world actually cared about. But the shootinstudent distinction merely divides rights into two classes - rights that folks will agree to recognize, and those they won't.
No-rights that the agents of the state will lift up their arms to enforce, and rights that the agents of the state won't. Your definition is not different from mine, except in wording. The meaning is the same. I'm not sure how useful your distinction is. And are you saying that some rights don't deserve legal protection? Can't tell.
"natural rights" and "human rights" are the province of philosophy and theoretical systems. They become relevant in terms of enforceability only in the context of the much despised big dreamy international and humanitarian legal systems.
Actually, the natural/civil distinction explains why there would be worldwide outcry if a nation arbitrarily rounded up foreign nationals within its borders, and subjected them to slavery or rape; yet non-citizens are routinely denied suffrage by host nations. That is why I said that my view has practical meaning.
The problem with your analysis is that it basically just renames the conflict Werewolf identified, and declares "there is no right to bear arms in someone else's house." You need to consider the obvious question: Why not? If you try to explain why, you'll be required to discuss the property rights of others in order to explain why something can be a "human right," yet not be infringed just because someone else arbitrarily decides you can't excercise it when you step onto the boundaries of his land.
Unless you have some concept of one right "trumping" another, you could just as easily say "the right to hold and control property doesn't extend to depriving others of the right to self defense." Or carve out any other number of discrete rules to describe the "natural" or civil rights of individuals. In the end, all you will have done is created exactly the same hierarchy as someone who says "the right to control private property trumps the rights of others to keep arms", and left the obvious, that you have a hierarchy, unstated.
"My analysis" of natural vs. civil rights has nothing to do with the alleged conflict between property rights and the RKBA. The right to property and the right to bear arms are both natural rights. Or they could both be civil rights, if you like. The point is simply that they are equal, and that there is no hierarchy; no trumping.
"there is no right to bear arms in someone else's house." You need to consider the obvious question: Why not?
The answer is equally obvious - you have no right to be in anyone else's house. It's very odd to contend that you have a right to bring your gun to my house, when of course you have no right to be in my house at all.
If you try to explain why, you'll be required to discuss the property rights of others in order to explain why something can be a "human right," yet not be infringed just because someone else arbitrarily decides you can't excercise it when you step onto the boundaries of his land.
It's not infringed, because no one forced the "infringement" on you. The same goes for the alleged deprivation of rights you also mentioned. You might just as well argue that the carnival is depriving me of five dollars, because it imposes a cover charge. If anyone is deprived of anything, it was on a consensual basis, so rights are not at issue.
