You're right that I was overly aggressive in my argument, and for that I apologize, but that questions were asked with genuine curiosity. Please explain the nu

You're right that I was overly aggressive in my argument, and for that I apologize, but that questions were asked with genuine curiosity. Please explain the nuance to me - if the only way to enforce rights is "guns" and "If someone is unwilling to defend their self, then that is their problem, and hopefully not the problem of others." then people don't have rights, they have no guarantee, they only have what they can take or defend by force, and force is the only deciding factor. What am I misinterpreting there?