The rights delineated in the American Constitution are understood to precede the government being held to account for them. Furthermore, they are held to be universal, natural rights.
I think you're getting the Declaration and the Constitution a little mixed up. Also conflating "free speech" with "the first amendment", but everyone does that so they can motte-and-bailey.
Natural rights belong to individuals, not states. Iran is a government; governments hold powers, not inalienable rights. The analogy collapses before reaching the question of nuclear weapons.
Interesting interpretation given the the 2nd Amendment gives the right to "a well regulated militia" and not to individuals including crazed yahoos and criminals. Sadly for millions of butchered Americans, US courts have agreed with your interpretation.
No, it does not. What it states is:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
(thus shedding light on the government's interest in the matter, since anything not illegal is legal by default)
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
(thus confirming the right of people - which includes crazed yahoos, and excludes some but not all criminals - not the government, to have weapons)
This is the current understanding within American jurisprudence. People are of course free to disagree with it, but when it comes to laws, the government's understanding of what the law means takes precedence both de jure and de facto.
The Bill of Rights does not enumerate what a citizen is and is not allowed to do, but rather lays out a number of cases in a non-exhaustive manner in which it restricts the government from infringing on liberties that are understood to have pre-existed it.
are "understood" by whom? hah, the American constitution isn't even codified, it's practically a religious scripture, even in this very thread there's people re-interpreting, arguing and/or trying to re-explain the wording to each other
There's a very widespread confusion over the meaning of inalienable.
The word does not mean "cannot be refused". It is trivially possible to refuse someone the right to life (kill them), liberty (imprison them), or happiness (torture them).
What cannot be done, however, is to transfer those rights to another individual.
Chattel or real property rights by contrast are inherently alienable. Your property (objects, land) can be denied you and given to someone else.
That said, the argument that inalienability makes a right somehow privileged (I have an an inalienable right to pain, for example, which I might be quite happy to shed) is a curious one, and there's a longer discussion in philosophy and the rights discourse over just what constitutes fundamental rights and why.
Definitions: "That cannot be transferred to another or others. Incapable of being alienated or transferred to another; that cannot or should not be transferred or given up."
In the context of the 18th-century document, the word was well understood to mean "not erased by human judgements nor actions". As in, shooting someone doesn't "alienate" their right to not be shot.
Welcome to HN. This comment is so unwelcome here it's ridiculous. Before you barge in, have the courtesy to synchronise with the ethos. If you are a sockpuppet account, then why do you feel the need? If you want to insult people, you can do it more effectively on Facebook.
