So you seem to agree that even things like bacteria have these natural rights. So doesn't this propose that we defend the right for all living things in the same manner? Perhaps we can presuppose that one who washes their hands should be charged with the mass genocide of billions of innocent Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter and Heliobacterium, just to name a few. If humans have the only exemption to these "natural rights", what is your argument for our special privilege?
Our special privilege is that there is no way for all life to co-exist at once. Certain life forms survive by feeding on others. Since we are humans, we apply our protections for our natural rights to our fellow humans. We also protect ourselves from non-human life forms of all kinds, but note that we do not treat those life forms in the way that we treat humans. If a bear breaks into your home and goes into the refrigerator, we don't arrest and charge that bear, then send it to jail or prison. Our fellow human beings, however, may not infringe on anybody's natural rights.
Likewise, why do we not go further and include non-living matter in all its forms? Should we leave the nature of a raw ore undisturbed because it alters its natural inclination to be what it is?
Ore isn't a life form, it's just a material.
If this is absurd to you, we can bring the reality closer to home...should the natural nature of the predators of any species have a right to life since they must kill other animals in order to survive? Do prey have a better right to life if they do not require killing other animals?
All life forms have a right to life in that one should not go about just killing them unless they present some large threat.
If you accept the premises of evolution, then could you not agree that we humans are also continuing to evolve and that divisions such as races that may eventually not be able to breed with each other justify intolerance toward one another if they are in competition to survive? What is unnatural about selectively declaring one group of human species deserving or undeserving of rights since they both may require killing each other in order to survive?
"Race" doesn't really exist. And the distinguishing feature of humans is our capability for higher level reason. You can't have a conversation with other creatures about how to live in harmony.
If a shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, what does that make a gun then?
A tool designed for war. That's what arms are. The basic tools of war. That is why the Second Amendment protects the right of the citizens to possess arms. Because war is not just something that countries do to one another. War is something individual humans can make on one another. If you are trying to kill me, you're making war one me. So it is my natural right to possess the basic tools of war to be able to make war back at you to protect myself. That is why police officers carry guns as well.
So if you try to kill a person who is offensively placing a gun at your head who just believes its necessary to do so for their own needs or philosophies, because you disagree with them, are you not just as wrong?
You are not just as wrong, because you are acting in self-defense.