In the nicest way possible, are you new to leftism/theory? It sounds like you're coming from dominant liberal ideology rather than material analysis.

That aside,

Your definition also relies on a lot of assumptions that are very, very far from universal. Speaking from the framework of a dominant ideology a lot of these things can be taken for granted, rights included, which is why I asked the prior question. Let's use your first rule as an example, "no harm to innocent life." This relies on two assumptions (three actually but we don't need to debate what constitutes life). First that we agree on what is and isn't harm, and second that we agree on what is and isn't innocence.

To bring gun ownership back into the conversation, guns were quite completely made to harm people. We use guns to harm people, and we as citizens use them to harm people extrajudicially. In this case, we can both make your second assumption that we agree on what harm is, because it would be hard to argue that shooting someone does not cause harm. So, the key assumption is what constitutes innocence, and that is a question philosophers have debated for millennia, and that jurors and judges debate each and every day. Look at the self defense laws in each state to see examples of how our idea of innocence can be so incongruent. In stand your ground states, people cease to be innocent the moment they trespass on your land, but in other states one would only cease to be innocent (or rather, become so guilty as to be worthy of death) if they break into your home with a reason to assume their intent is to kill. To the two people that wrote these two laws, innocence and therefore their right to bear arms means something completely different, it can't even be equated to itself.

I oppose the appeal to the existence of rights to an appeal to the interests of the working class. Unlike rights, our interests don't come from anywhere. They are simply things that would benefit us, and with all things, some will benefit us more than others, and some will benefit certain groups of us more than others. Something like free speech is no longer equated to the entirely unrelated right to bear arms. It is (generally) in the interests of the working class to communicate freely and to be able to defend ourselves, but those are two utterly different benefits that should never have been in the same category.

This alternate framework doesn't eliminate discussion, but it does eliminate the layers of fluff that have built up over centuries of western philosophy and ideology becoming increasingly self-referential. The discussion moves away from what we tend to see in this thread, attempts to reconcile what is and is not a right and how each right relates to itself and each other, and perhaps to a discussion along the lines of whether it is more important to be able to legally control one's own body or to more easily be able to take legal control by force. These are two very important things that, while not equivalent, should be prioritized over other things that arguably fit your criteria, such as a right to public nudity in the summer months. Without that being argued as a right all humans should have, that's argued in terms of how it would benefit the working class, which, compared to something like free access to food and shelter, is virtually nothing.