Natural rights only exist in abstract philosophy.

Indeed, in the real world, rights are decided by society, by "everyone else." Sometimes, they can also be decided by the elites, but even then, such rights have to be popular with at least a significant minority of the population for them to be politically sustainable.

So, one can go around claiming that something is one's God-given right, but if the vast majority of the people around you don't want you to have that right, then chances are you're not going to get it. So you can either just keep saying, "It's my right", or you can try to convince everyone else why you should have that right. The latter isn't guaranteed to get you your right, but it still has a better shot than the former, short of armed revolution (which is only likely to succeed if at least a significant minority has your back, in which case why not just try to convince a tiny bit more and you'll get it peacefully?)

We often hear this about abortion, for instance. Many on the pro-choice side just defend their position by saying, "We can't be rolling back women's rights!" Why not? Every pro-labor law sort of rolls back employer rights, every anti-discrimination law sort of rolls back property rights, children's anti-abuse laws curtail parental rights, and several public-health laws either roll back freedom-of-movement or bodily-autonomy rights.

Thus, when rights conflict — which is often the case — the whole thing becomes a balancing act, and, even though we don't like to think of politics and social norms that way, it comes down to just choosing which "side" or "issue" you value more or are more sympathetic to.

The only reason gun ownership, for example, is a right in the US is because enough people want it that way. If the mood changes, it will cease to be a right. Just like when the mood changed regarding certain type of speech, that type of speech ceased to be a right, socially speaking, regardless of what's written on the books.