Hey, Mike.
Thank you for posting that link - it's definition of civil rights illustrates my point nicely.
(West's Encyclopedia of American Law): The political, social, and economic rights that each citizen has by virtue of simply being a citizen, and which are usually upheld by law. The meaning of the phrase is shaded by its commonest reference: to the civil rights of ethnic minorities in the United States. In this and similar usages, there is at least as much stress on the rights of a (minority) group as on the rights of the individual.
Nevertheless the phrase is older and more general than the American Civil War. Any state which gives constitutional or legal guarantees to its citizens confers civil rights. However, constitutions sometimes state rights without giving the citizen any means of enforcing them against the state.
I believe that in our modern society, for better or worse, the term "civil rights" has been largely taken over by those who discuss ethnic or gender discrimination. Many of these people don't concern themselves with 2A rights, and some of them actively oppose the RKBA. If your intention is to say to them, "Hey, my RKBA is just as much a civil right as your labor/housing/educational/voting right", then I guess that use of the term is okay.
But that's a weaker argument than saying, "I hold this right inherently as a human being, regardless of what my government thinks." I agree with cbrgator that the RKBA is a pre-existing right, which We the People exercised before the founding fathers came up with the Constitution. I think it's great that they promised not to infringe it (and I think it's unconscionable that their modern counterparts have reneged on that promise). I don't have a problem with it being listed as a civil right, as long as we understand that it is also more than that, and not subject to the arbitrary nature of other civil rights. It is a natural right, independent of government approval.
Let's look at the situation in 1791. The bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution, and things were cool. Except if you were a Negro, in which case the federal government didn't recognize your "civil rights". Did Negroes deserve the natural right to self-defense and RKBA at that time? Of course they did, but the governments of the day denied them the exercise of those rights. So we see that depending on government for your rights is, ahh... unreliable at best. Even if you're a fat middle-aged white guy like me.
So that's my point. Not only is the RKBA pre-existing to the Bill of Rights, it is independent of it. At some future time if the government of America no longer exists, or is vastly changed from how we know it today, or has been co-opted by socialists, or whatever, the natural rights of humans will still exist, and humans will be insisting on them. Civil rights come and go, natural rights remain.
Parker
