A Blast for the Past, I'm mostly importing from my LiveJournal account. Since there are a thousand and one blogs on writing, I've decided to open this up a bit and include discussion of philosophy and what not as well so folk can get a feel for how I think.
The United States was founded not only as a geographic entity, but as a set of principles. Those principles were originally set out in the Declaration of Independence, to wit:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights, are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from consent of the governed."
The above was written from memory. Some of the punctuation and exact wording might not match exactly, and I may not have matched Jefferson's rather idiosyncratic sentence breaks, but it should be fairly close.
It should be noted that much discussion was had over whether "property" should be included in the unalienable rights. In the end it was not included in this document but the discussion itself shows that it was considered of fairly close par.
Now, while "unalienable" does not mean that the exercise of the rights cannot be taken away, when written into the Constitution, the standards for two of them (life and liberty also with property in that case) of which a person may be deprived is given: due process of law, which is after one has been tried in a proper court of law with opportunity to answer accusations and summon witnesses for ones own defense.
So, short of that, one may not be deprived of the right to life*. But how can one have a right to life if one does not have the means to effectively defend that life against persons or things that threaten it? Note, this is not a right to require others to defend ones life. Doing so would be an infringement on their own Liberty. (Likewise, to digress a moment, requiring others to provide "health care" for one is an infringement on their own right to Liberty. To the very extent that you are requiring them to provide for you, you are enslaving them.) But that you cannot require others to provide for the defense of your life only underscores the importance of your own right to defend it. One may enter into agreements with others for mutual defense, mutual assistance in the defense of each individual's life, liberty, and property, but entering into such agreements is merely the exercise of the individual right combined with "peaceable assembly."
So, right to life and right to defend that life. But can such a right exist when means to defense are denied? Could a peasant in Feudal Europe be said to have a right to self defense if he is limited to bare hands and farming implements against a mounted and armored knight? Oh, he might have the "right" to try, given the proper legal code, but it would be meaningless without the means. Give that peasant a firearm and suddenly that armored knight finds that he cannot with impunity take that peasant's right to life.
And, so, a right to life, and its implicit right to defend that life, must come with the right to effective means for defense.
And, so, if there is a right to life, then there must be a right to defend that life, and there must be a right to effective means to that defense. To deny the latter, to deny the right to effective arms for self defense, is to deny the very right to life.
And to deny the right to life is to deny all other rights which a person might hold. For how can one have liberty without life? How can one have property without life? How can one pursue happiness without life?
*Note here that I am not speaking to the abortion debate on the subject of "right to life." Much debate could be had on when life begins and, thus, when "right to life" comes into play. That is not my purpose here. Similarly, there is lesser but still some debate on when life, and therefore the right to same, ends. Again, not my purpose here. So please don't get sidetracked into those debates.