[quote=@Odin]
[@mdk] so the body responsible for maintaining these laws is the same body that can remove these laws? :lol That's what I mean. Yeah it's sacred - so is water if a priest waves his hand over it. It only has the meaning and weight you attach to it. I don't really attach meaning and weight to rights because they can be taken or plunged into a non-right at any given moment.
[/quote]

On the contrary. The body which can infringe upon these laws (Congress) is totally distinct from the body responsible for protecting them (SCOTUS). That said, the current/recent liberal bent in the US is judicial activism -- legislation from the bench -- which puts us squarely into that territory where the same (unelected, unaccountable, appointed-for-life) body both creates and strikes down federal policy, playing both sides of the 'rights' game. 

Anyway. This thing you're talking about is precisely why the U.S. Constitution [b]forbids[/b] the government from taking away the right to bear arms. The system is set up to (a) prevent the government from infringing on your rights, and also (b) to offer citizens recourse (by votes, mostly, but preserving the ultimate recourse of force) to safeguard their own rights. 

....the other tangent I wanted to go on, but thought better of.... In anarchy, you have [i]all of the rights[/i], and so does everybody else, and that kinda sucks. Every law is a restriction of rights. Frequently that's for the best, but that's what a social contract is, a surrender of rights in exchange for protection. Ergo, a "good law" is one that offers the most protection for the lowest cost in freedom, and a bad law is one that is overly restrictive without offering corresponding value in protections. Judging things on that basis, a whole lot of liberal crap is pretty terrible policy.