That's pretty deep, philosophical thinking, but the truth is, your rights only extend as the 3 branches of government allow them to. The Bill of Rights are law made by the founders of America for Americans. It is not common to man. It is not divine or part of what is commonly referred to as "natural law." It's values and protections do not protect any fundamental "rights" of mankind, but rather, the fundamental rights of what the founders wanted to sculpt America. It is a guidebook that acts as the law of the land. Low and behold, most modern law is not interpreted by what they were thinking in the 18th Century. Scalia is part of a dying breed, unfortunately. Today's laws are interpreted as to how they applies in modern life. The sacred Bill of Rights will continue to change over time.
Your 2nd Amendment rights in 200 years will be unlike your 2nd Amendment rights today. They may become more confined, or they may become more loose. Per the Constitution, your "rights" are protected at the will of the Legislature, which secures the legal abilities to alter the Bill of Rights as it deems fit. The Constitution grants the Congress the ability to amend each and ANY part of the Constution in one of two ways: (1) The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd), and (2) The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about
The Constitution and Bill of Rights will not always look the same. They change now and then through Amendments and bench interpretations. Perfect example is the 8th Amendment, which partly protects you from "cruel and unusual punishments." What was fundamentally protected when the Salem witches were burned at the stake or drowned? Is it "cruel and unusual" to lock someone in a room and fill it with poisonous gas? Is it "cruel and unusual" to stand someone on a stool, wrap a rope around their neck, and dangle them until they suffocate? I'm not advocating what is "cruel and unusual," but only mean to point out that our Bill of Rights changes with society, and there is NOTHING in the Bill of Rights that you have a fundamental, natural "right" to unless Congress says so.
>