That’s fair. But does the unalienable right to defend one’s life then constitute an unalienable right to keep and bear arms?
Suppose an intruder enters my home in the middle of the night, and I bash him with a baseball bat. His skull fractures, he is knocked unconscious, and he later dies in the hospital. The police investigate the facts, and the state deems it a clear case of justified homicide, and I am not charged with a crime. Case is closed. In this example, my “unalienable right to life” has been honored and upheld by our system in its recognition of my right to self defense, but it didn’t necessitate that I have the right to bear arms.
Am I saying that I believe baseball bats are sufficient for defending one’s family? No. I am just saying that the state can uphold the moral ideal of the right to self defense apart from me having the right to own a gun.
By contrast, suppose a few years later, an army of Soviet paratroopers falls out of the sky in my neighborhood (Red Dawn, anyone?). In that case, the baseball bat isn’t going to do me much good. Even if all the men of my city rally together with their baseball bats, we’re not going to be able to mount any defense, therefore we will not be able to defend our families and our neighbors. In this situation, arms are essential to preserving the “rights to life and liberty.”
It seems that our founding fathers had the second example in mind, explicitly. And so they decided that it shall be a right of the people to keep arms – that is, in their own possessions – so that when the Soviet paratroopers come, the citizens will have the means to respond immediately, without the constraint of the standing army. They also evidently didn’t want the constraint of each man having to rally to an armory before he could be of use. This is in contrast to other nations of the world who store all of their militia arms at armories. The readiness of the Minutemen, and the effects of partisan fighters during the Revolutionary War was no doubt in their minds.
As @Fr_Bill indicated, one of the natural consequences of each man having the right to keep arms for the event of the Soviet invasion example is that he now also has ready access to arms in the event of the home intruder example. But does it actually have to be this way? As Americans, we certainly think so, but I am not so sure.
Switzerland is an interesting case study for the separation between self-defense and the defense of the state. In short, all Swiss men between 18 and 34 are required to do military training. As militiamen, they are issued rifles and pistols, which they are to keep in their home. However, these rifles are expressly not for the purpose of self defense or defense of the home. They aren’t even issued ammunition – this is all kept in arsenal.
As one Swiss dude explains, “The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family. I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people.”
In Switzerland, they manage to have an actual militia culture without a gun-totin’ culture.
Am I saying I agree with their approach? No. For the purposes of this discussion, I just want to argue that the right to life and the right to bear arms are related, but separate from one another.