That is your problem. You want to waffle between the laws restricting you or being prohibitive and over to your rights. I present you with laws that are protective and you alter your attack and come from the "natural rights" position. If you cannot stay on track, this will become a useless discussion. But, to answer you; the constitution does not "give" you anything. It enumerates your natural rights (although some would say not all of them) and by doing so, protects those rights. The laws neither grant rights nor remove them. It attempts to prevent anybody from trying to prevent you from exercising your rights.Can you list even one 'gift' from your constitution (or ours because I live in Canada) that wasn't already yours before the constitution 'gave' it to you? I can tell you of some rights I have that the government has ommitted mention of. For one, I have the right not to kill foriegn people, but the government might want to conscript me for an army to fight for ideals that I don't believe in--so they haven't offered the right not to kill.
and as always, you can refuse to kill. It is your choice. One would think that since you have recieved so much from your government that you would be willing to defend that government. Apparently you believe everything in life if free. It isn't. If you do not want what your government provides you, then rebuke your government and go it without use of any governmentally provided benefits.
Uh, no, I just explained why this statement is incorrect."Man is born free: then constitutions take freedom away, under the guise of enshrining it." - Russell Twyce
You need to stay on track. If you want to speak of law, then do so. If you want to speak of rights, then do so.
The law does not restrict your rights anymore than neccessary so you do not infringe upon anothers rights. It is a balance but you seem to think you are entitled to more than anybody else. That is exactly what the laws are intending to prevent.