“You only have any rights because the rest of us pretty much agree that you have them.”What happens when the rest of us could not care less about those rights? Ask yourself this question and see the answer that is being denied by yourself and everyone else.If you have no value for those rights why should anyone else value them or bother to protect what you don't want and demonstrate how little you care?The US is a very good example of what people thought a 100 years and more ago. The US constitution is based very much on English/British law which enshrined the British Bill of Rights. This was much discussed by the eminent William Blackstone in his commentaries and in the USA by St George Tucker who had a great deal of influence. Now add “On crimes and punishments” - Cesare Beccaria 1764. You may want to read what Bacceria had to say.Jefferson certainly did read what Cesare Bacceria had to say http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun01.htmwhile the US constitution puts in words and law. These rights are present in every human rights agreement and can never be removed unless we the people agree we do not want that right or any of the natural rights we deserve and need to be free. All we have to do to lose a right is accept any incursion instead of objecting. We protect our rights and nobody else will do it for us.For what it is worth the right to arms received the second highest number of requests to be included in the South African Constitution. You will not find one word of discussion by the judges recorded on this matter. Those who requested this right did not feel they had the authority to demand this right and gave up their natural right by remaining silent. No court will ever accept silence as objection.Concourt Chairman A. Chaskelson made a comment in one of the newspapers that it was included in the right to life and went without saying. Nobody is interested in tracking that down or asking Chaskelson for the courts view at the time. It is now to late to ask and courts are free to make their own interpretation of this original view.The US Constitution was drawn up only after laborious and extensive research and evaluation of the available evidence was made. It is a reflection of world knowledge, examination and evaluation.The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual natural rights that are applicably to every citizen of the world.How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not granted any powers to deny us those rights.” The Declaration of Independence makes this unquestionably clear if we read it.The 2nd Amendment leaves absolutely no doubt. How else can one interpret “shall not be infringed”.“I go farther; and now proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government, they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and demanded in a state of nature.The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law.” --- James Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in 2 the Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896). (From a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792.)“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.” --- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).