In the view of the Enlightenment, rights are not extended by government at all. They exist naturally. The first amendments to US Constitution, which is a document of that era, recognize some and forbid government from interfering with them, and they also recognize that there are others not specifically mentioned.
To comment on two you bring up: the right to possess the means of self-defense has nothing to do with shooting rabbits, everything to do with shooting criminals including those employed by government; the right to thought and speech applies especially to political expression, and so criticism of presidents whether or not one considers it slanderous may not be regulated. Whether or not one has a right to do that is not a matter for government to decide. The rest are similar.
The US Constitution is there as a charter of the federal government. It seeks to protect the freedom of the states and the people only in its restrictions on federal power. It delegates specific authorities and no more to the federal government, and in the Bill of Rights it explicitly restricts the government from going beyond those limits. Freedom, in the view of the time, is not something that can be provided by government, it is inherent in human nature. The good society will see government not as the source or protector of freedom but as a necessary social institution that must be restrained tightly and carefully, or else by its own inherent nature it will destroy freedom. The Constitution can be read and understood only in the light of that perspective.