You seem to think the liberty to do someting is necessarily attached to the actual ability to do something. This is unsupportable, as having the freedom to do something in no way grauantees that you will be able to do it.
You're emptying your sense of freedom to the point its becoming an empty notion. It's just the word 'freedom' now - it doesn't refer to, or mean anything.
Anyway, 'able' has two interrelated senses, and you are confusing them. One refers to skills (like writing), specifically, the other to the minimum-maximum spectrum of being able to perform that skill (like writing a few sentences and writing a novel).
As far as the government is concerned, it only has the obligation to provide me with the minimum capability to perform a right, and the only a certain set of rights; if it can do more economically, great, but that is not a condition of our 'agreement' (me, being a loyal, taxpaying citizen, them, being a good government).
You have the freedom to own a million acres of real estate on Maui You do not have the ability to do so. That you do not have the actual ability to own that much land on Maui in no way means you do not have the freedom.
I have the freedom to own property. Because it must secure that freedom for me, the government must ensure it to the utmost extent it can. However, its responsibility is very minimal; at its lowest, to make sure I have shelter during weather that puts me in mortal jeopardy (like a blizzard during winter) and nothing more than that. In this case, I don't actually own property, but the shelter the government provides for me simulates it well enough to get by; basically, it is compensation to ensure I remain loyal even though I don't have any possessions for the government to protect which would compel me to be loyal. If I didn't get that shelter, I would have to break into somebody else's home in order to live.
I'm actually not free to own millions of acres of real estate on Maui or anywhere else because I lack the resources; however, that lack of freedom is not important to government, because its responsibility for my property extends only so far.
Of course, you also have the freedom to own whatever gun (or guns) you might choose to own -- do you believe that if you do not have the means to buy them, they should be provided to you?
Depends on the situation. If the government was not able to provide my region with the security detail necessary to ensure the free exercise of my constitutional rights against non-compliants (murderers, rapists, thieves, etc), because it was not economical (say I was too far way and there were too few people in my area) then I would probably require a gun in the absence of that infrastructure. If the government could not provide even that, then it is no government to me (and indeed, even if I transgress its laws, it has no power in the region with which to punish me). Buying me -- or rather, making sure I have --a gun would be the most minimal security provision it could make and still be my government.