Bearing arms, Right or Privilege?

The right to keep and bear arms is one that is engrained in our constitutions, and a highly patriotic notion. But is it really an "inherent" right for all humans? Has the "rest" of the world done a horrible atrocity by not allowing their citizens to own firearms? 

Here in the United States, previously convicted criminals are not allowed to own or possess any kind of firearm. The same rule applies to those that have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, specifically that could hinder their ability to use a firearm in a safe and controlled way. If these people don't have the right to own a firearm, then have we taken away a right? Or merely a privilege?

The "right" to keep and bear arms has many conditions relating to age, history, past acts, and many others. If the right to bear arms is an inherent one, then how/why do we take it away from so many people? It's because we are not confident in their ability to use a firearm safely, or with out harming others. You are not allowed to drive if you are impaired in a way that would make it unsafe for you or others. Driving is not a right, then how is gun ownership?

We may not have the inherent right to use or even own a gun, but that does not mean that we can not defend ourselves. Guns although effective for self defense are by no means the only way of self defense. Many other forms of self defense not the least of which is our own bodies, and our mind. The right to own a gun might be a privilege, but the right to defend one's self is certainly a right.

Gun ownership is not a universal right, the right to defend one's self is, and that should not and can not be taken away.

The Right To...

Do we have the right do anything that does not directly and negatively affect the well-being of another person?

Rights or an inherent rights more importantly are something that you have and can/should not be taken away from you. But do we have the right do anything that does not directly and negatively affect the well-being of another person? That is the question stipulated here today.

Right to live, and does life directly affect the well being of someone else? In cases where someones mental wellbeing is affected by the knowledge that another person exists, what do you do? Do you make one of the people "not exist" or do yo kill the one(s) who's mental wellbeing is affected? What about situations in where a criminal is about to take some one's life? You take the life of the criminal, not the victim, right? Now what about in the case of a bad pregnancy? Where the baby is going to kill the mother. Do you terminate the baby and save the mother or will the mother die in child birth? Do you kill the victim? So, are there cases in where it's our right to take someone's life?

If we have the right to poses knowledge, and that knowledge does not directly affect someone, then is it right? In the case of leaked photos from iColud, would it have been right to steal them so long as it wasn't leaked? It couldn't affect their wellbeing, because they don't even know that they were copied! Or in the situation where the NSA is using many various ways to collect large sums of data (knowledge) on us, this does not directly affect us in a negative manner, and could even be a positive change. It could help us catch terrorists, right? But it currently invades our privacy, and that affects us right? But it only affects us if we know that it exists.

If I do things to my own body, whether they be surgical, or drugs, or cutting myself, it doesn't affect others, it would only effect me. So should I have the right to cut myself until i bleed out and die? Should I have the right to use any drug I choose, so long as I don' harm anyone while I'm using? Do I have the right to surgically alter my body in any way I choose, do I then have a right to a sex change, or any piercings, or any plethora of odd-ball "enhancements? (Split toung, eye tattoos, nose removal, etc.)

Could we actually have the right to do anything so long as it does not affect others, or does this rule have too many exceptions to actually constitute a rule?  The "right to do anything (insert condition here)" is far too broad and vast a possibility to consider an inherent right.