We talk a lot about inalienable rights when discussing the Second Amendment. The liberals use a different jargon; 'human rights'. The meaning is much the same, referring to natural rights we have simply by virtue of existing as free people. This opens up an interesting line of intellectual attack on liberal groupthink about gun control. You can usually get even the most diehard liberal to admit that the right to self defense is a universal human right, especially when you put the discussion in the context of minorities, women and the disabled defending themselves against violent attack. That is the foundation of the counterargument. For an effective right of self-defense to exist, one must have the tools to defend one's self and one's loved ones. Obviously, criminals can always get guns if they want them, even in nations with very strict gun control laws like Britain. So the only effective tools for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against a violent criminal attack is guns. By banning guns for citizens, you are taking away the only realistic self defense tool from people, making them easy victims for any armed criminal. This obviously de facto destroys a person's ability to defend themselves and their family, thus violating their human right to self defense. Ergo, strict gun control is a gross violation of everyone's human rights. Gun banners are human rights violators. I think that recasting the argument in this human rights context will definitely put anti-gunners in an indefensible position (bad pun fully intended).