Any "right" set forth in the Constitution can be changed by a process set forth in that same document. Tomorrow, we could in theory pass an amendment to nullify the First Amendment. The Weimar constitution granted certain rights. Hitler removed them with the stroke of a pen. What rights were conferred by man can be taken away by man.
Jefferson used the language of "creator" because it was how people spoke in that age. But he believed in a non-interventionist God, so it seems unlikely he believed that any rights were conferred by God. He probably used the word creator to emphasize what he saw as the importance of these legal rights. But it has created the impression among many people that somehow we're born with these rights and they can't be taken away, which is false.
And to illustrate that this discussion isn't about gun control per se, I would also point out that I disagree with liberals claiming that healthcare is a right. Because it isn't a right unless we decide to make it one, and we haven't done that yet.
Of course they "can be." They "can be" taken away by anyone with force no matter what the constitutions says. The difference here is that they can't be taken away with constitutional/legal means. The wording ensures it.
whoosh yourself,
wolfe said it better than I can,
Any right granted by the constitution can be removed, or else we'd still have prohibition on the book. If enough federal and state legislatures vote to change the constitution it will be changed.
You're still not getting it. "Any right granted by the constitution can be removed" is no, duh, territory. You think a conquerer aiming to subjugate Americans and destroy the government is concerned with the Constitution? Of course not. The problem is that repeating "any right granted by the constitution can be removed" fails to address the other relevant point about this specific wording.
The relevance is for the people granted constitutional authorities (our government) explicitly defined in the Constitution. Just like prohibition, we established that they are allowed to add/remove constitutional rights through amendments... "words" that they have the Constitutional authority to change. That's the "duh" part again. The difference here is that the "God-given" wording doesn't allow for this one aspect to be legally changed by amendment. It isn't about whether or not God is real. The Constitution explicitly says neither it nor anyone amending it has the power to change that aspect, which is the important part everyone dismissing it as "just words" has failed to address.
Those "words" ensure that anyone changing them does so without constitutional authority just like a foreign conqueror or warlord since it grants them no authority to do so. It's a pretty significant impact on the feasibility of changing it legally and can't be dismissed with "just words" or "God's not real." The wording makes a reversal of that part an overreach of constitutional authority by defining it as beyond the purvue of government authorities/powers granted by the Constitution. To deny that this complicates any attempt to repeal the 2A just because "God isn't real" is just playing dumb. By attributing the right to "God," it expressly denies them and itself the authority to make such a change.
Bringing up Prohibition shows you're still ignoring how conferring the authority to God complicates things, which is the only thing I'm trying to convey here. Prohibition or drinking alcohol were never defined as God-given rights which makes it completely irrelevant to the argument about whether calling these "God-given rights" complicates anything.