I view your thinking as being quite similar to that of the rabid environmentalists who view every action of man as artificial and not deserving of the protection accorded to blind fish or spotted salamanders.
I'm thinking in terms of philosophy and "State of Nature" versus "State of Society", the hypothetical wherein the "State of Nature" exists before the "State of Society" and government and so forth. I'm thinking that way to try to get to first principles.
I'm not thinking in the terms of the "rabid enviromentalists", who I think are mostly nuts. I don't say entirely nuts only because I'm not acquainted with all of them. I think a dam built by beavers and a dam built by humans are comparable in principle and that the human built dam is not to be disparaged just because it is human built.
Now as to the rest:
Again I disagree.
I'm not clear on the disagreement.
I understand what you are saying, but I view the protections accorded to society by means of a criminal trial as the artificial creation.
I agree that the protections are the artificial creation, but again, “artificial” is the key word. The protections spring from society or the state. I don't see how they could be found absent an organized society, that is in a State of Nature. I don't see how the term "inalienable" applies.
The right to a speedy trial is what remains of the inalienable right to liberty.
Maybe, maybe not. But what I wrote was 'The "...right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." is not an inalienable right.' There's more there than just the "speedy trial".
What is your view of the right to purchase firearms?
Well, as stated it's too dependent to be an inalienable natural right. Among other things, it depends on the willingness of someone who has the right or authority to do so to offer a firearm for purchase.
Anti-gunners would contend that the state has authority to control this aspect of commerce without limit.
That would depend on whether or not the people who live under the authority of the particular state have ceded that authority to the state. So far as I know, we have not done that in any of the United States, but it may have happened in other states around the world, currently or historically.
If I make a firearm and wish to sell it to you, is that act a "creation of society" or is it simply the most primitive form of barter needed to supply one of us with arms?
I don't follow the question.
I believe that our Founders viewed the Bill of Rights as an enumeration of a minimal set of protections of natural rights that should accompany a compact establishing government. I don't view the Bill of Rights as being part of the compact.
We already disagree about the natural rights part, but what is the compact of which you write?
To deny a speedy trial is a violation of rights which pre-existed the Constitution, much as the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment pre-existed the Constitution.
That the right to a speedy trial pre-existed the Constitution does not mean it is a natural or inalienable right. The right to self-defense tracks back to the right to life. The Second Amendment doesn't mention self-defense.
Finally, how badly do you want the "speedy trial" you write of with no qualifiers?
If my companions and I find you with my horse, that I believe was stolen from me, we can give you a speedy trial right then and there and a neck tie party to follow. The trial will be so speedy you won't have time to call witnesses to testify that you found the horse running loose and were returning it, or that they saw you "buy" it from the person who really stole it.
You'll get a speedy trial, but not necessarily a fair one.
The "inalienable" part is the right to a SPEEDY trial. We have an inalienable right to liberty. Infringement of that right carries with it a considerable burden on "society".
I believe that your division of rights into "natural" and otherwise is very difficult and perhaps misleading as to the consequences of the distinction.
Ants demonstrate a division of labor which contributes to the welfare of their society with no apparent consideration of the "rights" of a particular ant.
Humans are "endowed by their Creator" [a phrase which must trouble Obama greatly] with inalienable rights which are a consequence of our special place. [I'm not a religious person but I believe that I understand what our Founders were thinking.]
Back to my example of bartering to obtain a gun made by another person. This example could be simplified to include the act of sharpening a stone into a useful cutting tool and trading it for a handful of berries.
At what point do the acts of two or more people somehow morph into "society"? Division of labor for mutual benefit is simply too primitive to believe that such actions somehow lose the character of "natural rights".
It doesn't explicitly mention "handguns" either, but the Heller decision makes clear that the Founders were protecting a right which includes self defense with a handgun in the home.