For the sake of discussion, I agree that your conclusions follow from your premises. However, how do you determine what are really your rights and mine?
That's far beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's keep this focused on arguing about whether or not I can threaten to do what I have the right to do, or demand you to do what you have the right to do.
This is like a Catholic offering to debate the nature of the Holy Trinity while saying that the question of evidence for God's existence is "far beyond the scope of this discussion." Your faulty conclusions follow logically from your flawed premises. Well played, Thomas Aquinas.