The tenth amendment is specifically granting powers to people. It is the constitution giving you rights.
Obviously what we are discussing is where rights come from. Have you thought about where they come from in other jurisdictions where people have different rights? In France you have no presumption of innocence when you are charged with a crime, and you don’t have a fifth-amendment-like protection from testifying against yourself. Were those people granted the same rights by nature as the people of the US, only to have them taken away by a government that didn’t specify that it would not take away those rights?
If you are arguing that people are born with the freedom to do or be whatever they damn well please and governments restrict those freedoms via laws, that is a very American perspective on things, and the way that the American constitution phrases things is a reflection of that ideal. But why are people able to use the second amendment to battle some kinds of gun control laws but they can’t make similar arguments using the more general freedom to pursue happiness to argue against car control laws (whether it’s emissions or driver’s licenses)? It’s because there is no amendment granting the right to own or drive cars.
If rights are things that you are entitled to and freedoms are things that you can do without interference, then nature grants you no rights or freedoms whatsoever. Born into nature there is no one to complain to if someone bigger than you takes your stuff (whether they call themselves a government or not) or if you are killed and eaten. These things are granted by societies that enforce them.
