Let's consider some analogies.
Is slavery on private property ok? On governemnt property? Why not?
Is murder or rape on private property ok? On government property? Why not?
(Hint: It's not some piece of paper.)
The Constitution even acknowledges some of them.
The Declaration has those rights as casus belli for government nullifying itself, leaving citizens to re-institute government that will protect these rights.
Unalienable rights apply throughout the land, or they are just conditional privileges.
The founders asserted that the rights exist, everywhere.
Governments and/or individuals who do not acknowledge that everyone has those rights, are repugnant to the Constitution, and natural law.
So - Slave? Or American?
“It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.”What was that? "Null and Void".
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are Null and Void."
--Cheif Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison
-- 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
That's almost as strong as "shall not be infringed".
A government that violates the document that institutes it, makes itself repugnant to that document.
Such a government makes itself Null and Void.
John Marshall. Smart Man.
Property rights do not trump slavery. And as a free man has a right to life, he has a right to protect himself, his neighbors, and his community against tyrants, thugs, and bullies.
Being defenseless, makes one a slave to every petty tyrant. Which is how petty tyrants like it.