There is no such thing as an inalienable right -- such a thing has no objective existence.

A (legal) right is an action which the government is legally unable to prohibit you from taking. It has a specific, grounded, legal reality.
"Inalienable rights" are alienated all the time (how inalienable is your right to free speech in Iran, or to own weapons in Britain?) What the statement "there is an inalienable right to freedom of speech" really means, is "I think all people everywhere should have a legal right to freedom of expression." I agree with you, of course, but I acknowledge that my opinion doesn't reflect an part of objective reality. It's a desire or goal.
As a result, naturally, the scope of those "inalienable rights" varies from person to person. For instance, I believe in an "inalienable right" (i.e., I believe everyone should have the legal right) to marry anyone and everyone one chooses, as long as all parties involved are competent to consent and actually do consent. Many people in America would not acknowledge an inalienable right to gay marriage or polygamy. That disagreement isn't a disagreement about the nature of reality that can be solved by pointing to some objective evidence; it's an opinion.

If "inalienable rights" were an objective property of the universe, it would not be possible to have culturally specific, substantially divergent views of what they are.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1340015&cid=29110463

Re: Jeff Cooper and the scout rifle. I'm sure it's a fine weapon -- it sounds like an excellent killing device, and there's times and places where an excellent killing device is what is needed.
But when you're talking about hitting a man-sized target from 450 meters, YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. No legitimate self-defense tool has a scope. Property defense, perhaps; but part of living in a first-world country is that we accept that property defense is rightfully the jurisdiction of the law and its enforcers.