The actual right still rests with the people. The authority still rests with the people. The people delegate that to the government. That’s true even if we take it to the extreme to apply to things like ultimate firepower (nuclear) or trade treaties, etc. The government has no rights or powers on its own, but only what the people give it.
That does not necessarily translate into meaning that every act of government can likewise be performed by every individual citizen. As I wrote earlier, we give up some of those abilities in the social compact. Otherwise, every person would be a nation unto himself, and we know that’s not realistic.
So before government exists, as an individual I have a certain right (purely potential and theoretical) to own a tank or an ICBM. Once government exists, individuals give up the ability to exercise that right (social compact).
Historically, in the U.S., the defining line has been between an individual firearm (rifle, pistol, shotgun etc.) and one employed by a military “unit” (canon, tank, missile, etc.) To use the language of the 18th century, the difference is between “firearms” or just “arms” and “ordinance.” That’s why most people agree that the government cannot infringe on the right to own a rifle, but can indeed regulate individual ownership of a machine gun.