Locke believed that the state of nature implied a law of nature, which is that "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions." Ergo, there were "natural rights" to life, liberty and property.5 Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.
As can readily be observed, the true "state of nature" in no way justifies this conclusion -- as our very position at the top of the food chain conclusively demonstrates. Defenders of Locke's position are left with two choices: introduce a series of rather lame qualifiers concerning "moral status," or acknowledge a Creator who has endowed us with the rights embodied in Locke's "natural law."
The first option is well nigh indefensible, and it ultimately reduces to might makes right. It certainly does not allow one to make any distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate weaponry -- as long as it doesn't hurt me or mine, I can use whatever force is necessary.
The second option provides an entirely defensible basis for "natural law," and the distinctions between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons. At the same time, however, the existence of a Creator introduces some additional difficulties to Locke's position -- chief among which is the implication that God, and not we, are the true owners of our bodies.
This brings up a related point: the "state of nature" observed by Locke was primarily a society formed in general accord with the Christian concepts of community, judgement, and eternal life.
In that view, there may be in fact be a moral justification to "disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings" if it is harmful to the community at large.