Here's how you can tell if a set of rights is more correct or less correct - how well a country organized around those rights thrives, or fails to thrive.
The US has thrived, meaning its definition of rights is reasonably on the mark.
Yeah, well I don't see a country that's thriving, except in terms of wealth (for some). I see a country lurching towards another Civil War.
Anyway, my point was that I don't think these rights exist, and that framing things in terms of rights is arse-over-tit. I'm not interested in arguing whether the US chose the right set of rights; I'm saying I have no idea what a "right" is, other than a privilege granted by law.
Apparently not; many states have a death penalty (i.e. a withdrawal of that privilege). Prosecution of policemen for murder is rare, and a conviction is even rarer.
And you're still baldly asserting that rights exist, without explaining what rights are or where they come from.
The US has thrived, meaning its definition of rights is reasonably on the mark.