Ah, another juvenile retort. Let me try one more time to have an adult conversation.
Well, then, by your argument, we only have the natural right to armed self defense with our hands and feet. You need a reality check, or you need to find a karate forum on which to post.
And, as I have stated many times before, you have a natural right to self-defense. You do not have a
natural right to any technology in that defense. In the US, we have an
enumerated right to keep and bear arms to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense. The founders wisely believed that such might be necessary, in order to allow the people to remain in charge of the government--even if it went rogue and tried to oppress the populace using its armed resources.
As long as the regulation of the use of any technology (even technology that is used in the exercise of natural rights) is based on a compelling governmental interest and does not unduly impede the exercise of a natural right, that regulation is reasonable and violates no right.
In the US, requiring training and proof of competency before someone is licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public byways is reasonable because the government has a compelling interest in increasing the safety of those who use the byways and because anyone with anywhere near normal capabilities can obtain a license. The regulation in other countries that prohibits women from driving is unreasonable (and, therefore, a violation of the natural right to travel) because it is not based on a compelling interest.
That being said, I don't care. It is up to the people of those nations to take back their rights. If they won't, then they are tacitly accepting the status quo--which is their right (a natural one).