Without either of these two rights you are little more than a animal kept on a leash and not even owning that.
I find it hard to believe that an adult would distill down everything that is human into just taking another breath and calling that living.
The teachings of Christ flew right over your head I suppose,
CATO
Through experience, we have found that where property rights are all in the hands of one person (tyranny), there are gross violations of Right #1. Therefore, it is prudential to extend property rights broadly to secure Right #1. See how this works? However, in your case, if you declare a "right" to property, then either you limit it at some point or you allow absuridities, such as allowing someone to set up an anthrax production facility on their own property without government interference.
Similarly, I believe you have no "right" to own a firearm. However, it is impossible for a government to extend protection to all people in a society at all times; in fact, to try would result in tyranny and gross abuses of Right #1. So my system would more or less demand firarms ownership because--you have a right not to be arbitrarily killed and government cannot secure that right at all places at all times. Thus, prudentially, private firearms ownership would be extended to everyone. In your construction, declaring a "right" to bear arms would mean, at its logical conclusion, that I have a right to own a Huey gunship. Under my construction, Huey gunship ownership would not be prudential and thus that privilege (note: not right) would not be extended.
Free speech: no one has a right to free speech in my system. However, since under my system all people must be equal before the law, if there are no free speech privileges, then no one can speak, which is ridiculous. So, those privileges are extended. Under my construction, speech can be extended to things that enhance public order (criticism of government, business, peaceful demonstrations), but not things that interfere with the public order (pornography, S&M clubs, "freedom of expression" in the form of prostitution, etc.).
You see, the libertarian idea that there are a panopoly of "rights" is ridiculous. There is only one right, that every human being from the beginning of time until the end of time can agree on: the right not to be arbitrarily killed. Every "right" (I call them privileges) except this one can be limited without tyranny being the result. If you start limiting the 'right not to be arbitrarily killed', then ipso facto you have tyranny.
The system is simple; it is not, however, simplistic or 'adolescent'. It is quite adult.