Well now it makes sense. I should have caught it way back when you said "they never intended it to be an exhaustive list". Then your constant concern with interpretation. Then the blatant reference to the Bill of Rights and that they may not be abridged by any government.
Well, declare every right an inalienable right and there's NO WAY to misinterpret that! "Shall make no law" means no law. And "shall not be infringed" mean zero infringements.
Well, life is so simple when you're you. Golly gosh, if it only worked that way, huh?
"Reasonable regulations"? Not in your vocabulary. "Strict scrutiny? Nope. "Compelling state interest"? Never heard of it.
Of course, you can't back up your position. How can you? It's fantasy! Now don't tell me. Let me guess. You're a Libertarian, right? (Or do you prefer libertarian? Most do.)
These were exactly the kind of rights-circumventing notions that the Founding Fathers plainly wanted to avoid, and did so by writing a Constitution that granted the government limited powers, and laid out specific limitations on those powers, in a manner designed precisely to ward off terms oft abused by government leaders, terms like "reasonable regulations" (i.e.: "ban 'em all"), "strict scrutiny" (i.e.: "it really doesn't say that"), and "compelling state interest" (i.e.: "state interests trump individual inalienable rights").
Yes, we're libertarians. And you're a totalitarian - admit it.