So did you find any rights given to us by the government/constitution yet? Let me know when you do.

I was hoping you'd do some research and actually read the amendments and point out the rights granted in those amendments. Seems like that's not going to happen. So I'll start. Here's the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis added by me. Most people will say the first amendment is the freedom of speech or the right to free speech. Nowhere in the text above does it say this amendment gives us the freedom of speech. What it does say that that congress shall pass no laws abridging that freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is a natural right. The first amendment is a protection of that right.

Now let's go to the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Again, emphasis added by me. Does it say we grant the citizens the right to keep and bear arms? No. What it does say is that the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. Again, a protection of our natural right. And notice how smart these framers were. They didn't say we had a right to arms, they said we had a right to keep and bear arms. Because if it said we had a right to arms then I'm sure some politicians would say this means the citizens that don't have the means to purchase their own arms will have the tax payers purchase them.

District of Columbia v Heller https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 22:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

Page 24:

A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to them-selves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.

Page 28:

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

Page 28:

Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.

Page 29:

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

Page 50:

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

The correct way to refer to the second amendment, in my opinion but shared by others, is "the second amendment protections" or the "protections provided by the second amendment" or "constitutional protections". If you read the recent Supreme Court rulings on gun control, the one written by Justice Thomas, you'll notice that often he refers to it as the second amendment protection or protection offered by the second amendment or something like that. However I did notice that he also referred to it as the second amendment right, not sure why he uses both phrases.

There are certainly politicians who would love for all the citizens to think that the government is the body granting them their rights. Seeing that our rights are unalienable and endowed by our creator that's probably why many on the left are trying to do away with god. They want to be at the top and so they don't want any god above them.

If you want to believe you get your rights granted to you by your government by all means believe that. I'll choose to believe I have unalienable rights endowed by my creator.

I'm not going anywhere.