Even Jefferson didn't really mean it in the Declaration of Independence.
"So Tom, life is an inalienable right? What if a person murders someone? Can we take his life in punishment?"
"No, I wasn't talking about that," Tom answers.
"What about in war, can I take someone else's life in war, especially if he's a British soldier about to shoot me?"
"No, I wasn't referring to war," Tom said, looking at me like I was stupid.
I'm not sure where I picked up the idea, but somehow I emerged from high school thinking that the rights of the Constitution were absolute, meaning without exception. Turns out this is not only wrong, it is impossible.
Freedom of religion is not absolute. If my religion pushes me to kill other people, I can't practice it.
The right to bear arms is not absolute. There's nothing to keep the government from prohibiting a criminal from having a gun... or from banning assault rifles from the general populace, since their sole existence is to kill lots of people as quickly as possible.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. I am not free to blog plots against the government or say certain things about the president.
Living in society requires everyone involved to surrender some portion of their individual freedom for the common good. Then we hire police to enforce the "social contract" we have made.
No rights are absolute. We are not living in a jungle or in some primitive culture where justice is administered by rogue individuals. There is no Batman.
Taxes are a given. We do not have the right to drive 100mph within the city limits as part of the contract because that wouldn't be good for other pedestrians who are part of the social contract with me. The trick is the give and take.
What is the sweet spot between my individual freedom and the common good of society? There is no right or wrong answer, only ones that benefit more or less people.