> The constitutions define the limitations of government, not the other way around.

Not every nation does have a constitution, some even completely lack a comparable document. I'm also not a US American because as I said before: It's pretty much only US Americans who seem to have issues understanding this very simple dynamic.

> Guns are not 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take them away from you.

As confirmed by the supreme court: The government does have said power to enact regulations of said firearms because the second amendment leaves that interpretation room.

> Free speech isn't 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take it away from you.

The government, of course, has the power to take that away from you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

How "free" is speech really when you can't even choose time, place and manner of said speech?

I ask you again: Who is in the ultimate position of power to interpret a nations constitution and actually enforce said interpretation? Idealists might claim "the people!", when in all actuality it's the acting government.

Case in point: Many of the people in Hamburg also demanded their constitutional given right to "freedom of assembly", the vast majority of them did so peacefully. Guess how that turned out? With a media campaign painting the whole movement as rioters and common Germans demanding that police should simply shoot them.

Hate to break it to you, you've just brought up a bunch of disjointed statements, with questions peppered throughout in order to deflect attention away from the reality of what I wrote. Not a single one of your points counters what I said. Not sure why you'd do that, but here we are.