There are no "rights".
You have no "rights".
There are merely revokable privileges that those with more power grant to those who have less power.
There are no rights.
Disagree? Let's say you are an American and disagree.
Right of religion? Ask a Muslim trying to set up a community center. Or more controversially, a Native American whose rites might include psychoactives or a Mormon who believes in polygamy. Or sixty years ago, ask a Catholic presidential candidate how neutral an issue religion was in his candidacy.
Right of speech? The "net neutrality" debate is about making some speech more free than others. We have members of Congress looking to prosecute those reprinting the Wikileaks reports. And the past is rife with censorship, all the way back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
Right of peaceable assembly? If you wore an anti-Bush t-shirt to a Bush rally, tell us how that turned out. Ask coal miners on strike in the early 20th century.
Right to redress of grievances? What's the scorecard on how well Federal whistleblowers have fared?
Right to keep and bear arms? The Arizona debate aside, ask a 19th century non-white or any current resident of DC, Chicago or New York City.
Right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? Try to board a jetliner owned by a private company without interference, tell a policeman he cannot search your car "just because" or keep your phone calls and emails private against a national security letter. Or for that matter, keep a SWAT team from busting down your door by mistake.
Right to due process and trial by jury? Ask the current administration that wants to execute US citizens for suspicion of terrorism without arrest or trial, or the previous one that wanted to declare US citizens "enemy combatants", or any recipient of mob justice at the end of a rope.
Right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? Ask Bradley Manning or any Guantanimo detainee how they feel about that one.
Your "rights" are and always have been revokable at will by those who have sufficient power that they can do so without concern for the consequences.
There are two points to be made. The first is that government is like any other species in an ecosystem. It strives to gain control of as many resources as possible and does what it can, consciously or unconsciously, to perpetuate its existence, seeing any challenge as a mortal threat. It is the nature of government to increase its power and not in its nature to give up power.
The second point is that what you consider "rights" and "freedoms" exist only because they were fought for, often literally. If you give them up and increase the power of someone or something else, do not expect to get them back. If you are trying to acquire a "right" or "freedom" you currently lack, expect anyone who would lose power from it to put up one hell of a fight to keep you from getting it until it is clear that it is a lost cause.
These notions are true for everything from a teenager rebelling against parental authority (the latter case) all the way up to a government deciding to keep in place the exact same abuses it campaigned against while trying to get elected (the former case).
This is not a liberal belief, not a conservative belief, just a common-sense observation. Giving up any freedom or aspect of self-determination to a powerful organization whose loyalty is going to regularly change from your point of view to someone else's is not a good idea. Why this even needs to be said is a mystery to me. The only way you will get it back is if you are lucky or you have sufficient numbers to be the "power" in the equation. Votes are a form of power, but only if those relying on your votes know that you will vote against them if they fail. If they know they can take you for granted because they know you will not vote for the alternative, your votes are merely a tool for them to gain power, but useless for influencing them once they are in power. I think we can see that in the political calculus of both parties in the past few years.
On the other hand, societies require compromise. Any organization larger than a lone individual requires compromise (just ask a married couple). But compromise means that both sides give something and get something, hopefully of equal value.
But sacrificing liberty for security is not an equal trade.
If you are someone who believes in personal freedom and the right of peaceful self-determination, whether on political views, drugs, abortion, sexual preference, religious freedom, racial or gender or marriage equality or whatever, then you should support everyone who supports personal freedoms, whether you agree with them or not on the freedom in question. If you carve out a "freedom exception" for your beliefs and give someone else the power to restrict everyone else's, then you have no grounds to complain or act surprised if someone else does the same to you when their ideology is on the rise.
And neither of you should expect to get that freedom back without a struggle.