Also, the 2nd Amendment is really not as explicit as you may think.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
sounds pretty explicit to me
Also, many of the founders were abolitionists. The DOI originally DID say "life, liberty, and property" but they didn't like the word property in there because they foresaw the southern states using that as a basis to keep slavery legal forever.
2nd Amendment stuff: you forget the first part of the amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." One could interpret this as saying that the right to keep and bear arms is unalienable only so long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which it obviously isn't today. I guess others could hold that we just don't care about the context and that the constitution is the constitution, but no matter which way you side, it's really not that explicit. Do away with the first part of the amendment, and the right to bear arms suddenly becomes a completely unalienable right. Which makes me wonder, then, why they decided to include that first part if they wanted that right to remain quasi-absolute.
For the original wording of the DOI, it's a very interesting detail. That would lead me to conclude, then, that property is not as absolute an unalienable right as the other stuff - since the founding fathers actually considered inserting it and later decided not to.
Slavery was enshrined in various parts of the original constitution, by the way. The whole thing had to be amended for it to be done away from.
--
When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore