An inherent right is unalienable whether or not it is recognized as such by government. But the practice of a right can be forbidden by government, and as we all know the right to keep and bear arms often is. Therefore I think it would be correct to say that our ability to practice the right to keep and bear arms needs to be restored rather than to say the right itself needs to be restored.
I have said before that a right is legitimate only when it is recognized by the courts. If the courts don't recognize a right, then it effectively does not exist.
A right doesn't exist in effect when denied to the people by government, but it can't be made non-existent by government. People have inherent, unalienable rights, government only has certain enumerated powers granted to it by the people it governs, but not inherent rights.
Sounds to me like you’re splitting hairs. If government forbids the exercise of a right then government has effectively rejected that right... just as I stated.