What he tried to explain, and allow me to drive it home bluntly so it gets through some thick skulls: A right is pointless if you neither exercise it nor defend it. A right is never self serving. And whether you have it or not is not even being tested until you try to exercise it.
Essentially you can have any right, as long as you don't test it, you don't even know whether you'll really have it or not. Take the 3rd. Yes, the 3rd amendment. You know, the one where you needn't house soldiers. It's a bit silly today, ain't it? I mean, let's be reasonable here, if the country can't house its soldiers anymore... but let's take it as an example since it's one of the amendment nobody really gives a shit about anymore. As much as the Quartering Act (where the Brits forced the colonies to house soldiers whenever they pleased) was one of the reasons for the rebellion, there really is not any use for that particular amendment anymore.
But do you know whether it really applies? Or are there just no soldiers kicking you out of their bed and proclaiming it theirs 'cause the state currently has enough barracks? Sure, it's not the best example considering how easily the state could avoid infringing in this constitutional law, all it takes is build some kind of shelter for its soldiers.
But let's take a step back and look at the second. Do you have it? Or do you have it as long as you're not really a nuisance, much akin to the first where you're allowed to practice your free speech today mostly where you cannot be heard? The funny (or not so funny) thing is that the first WAS tested. And now we have "free speech zones".
I guess should anyone ever test the second, we'll get "free shooting zones".