A bare human in nature is barely human even - he/she has no language, no family, no nation, no history, no culture, etc. Same for his rights. There's no freedom guaranteed to him by nature - anybody can enslave him. There's also no right to life or property: anybody can kill him, get his valuables, etc.
Rights are what we declare/determine that our collective organization (i.e. a government in modern terms) must help establish, secure, and guard.
"Natural rights" is a way to say "We believe that the government should protect and secure this and that "right", and that it is the obvious and natural thing to do".
Otherwise "natural rights" means nothing, it's an empty wish, and has no basis without anyone to enforce it.
People do have natural gravity. The have mass, weight etc, just because they exist in nature as people. Nobody can take that away from them.
But they don't have "natural rights" given by any kind of nature, those are things that somebody must establish and enforce for them (including themselves, either because they are stronger than anybody else, or because they group together and enforce them for one another).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
People conflate these rights with human rights but they are in place to prevent the government from unduly interfering with your inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" which the Declaration of Independence says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect.
I am surprised so few Americans seem to realize they are imposing an entirely American centric view of the role of government and the rights of citizens.
Every country has different traditions and understanding of the role government should play. There is no right answer to this.
One must be able to argue this philosophically, without attempting to settle the matter as some sort of legal battle in court where one can "win" the argument by presenting legal text from the American constitution.
I'm not the least bit surprised actually.
The interesting part is figuring out the correct answer. Possibly the questions themselves are wrong, because you answered a preceding question wrongly. But none of that changes that there is always a right answer, even if you ask the wrong question.
No, they are human rights, or, at least, they are in their framers view an articulation of a subset of such rights essential to call out in a particular context.
> but they are in place to prevent the government from unduly interfering with your inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
No, they are essential components of Liberty in the context of the existence of government.
> which the Declaration of Independence says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect.
Governments, more often than not, are not created for the purpose or protecting the particular vision of natural rights held in mind by the authors of the Declaration of Independence (in fact I would go so far as to say that since visions of natural rights are at least as varied as the people that believe in natural rights as a valid concept, and that even those individuals have their concepts shift over time, the only government that might ever have been formed for that purpose would be one formed at the exact time of the DoI by the same people.)
You don't really have an inherent right to security and security is not really even possible in a state of nature.