Inalienable is often referred to as a God-given right , does that mean God gave us the right to keep and bear arms .
Inalienable, unalienable, and God given rights are also called "natural rights", and it may help clarify some points of view if you think of them in that way.
God (Nature) gave the tiger his teeth and claws, gave the cow horns, the eagle talons and a sharp beak, etc. NO LAW made by man can change or invalidate that.
Each of us as individuals has a fundamental natural right to defend our lives. This right does not exist because someone wrote something on a piece of paper. It exists because WE EXIST. And nothing written on paper or passed by government can change this.
So, yes, "God" gave us the right to keep and bear arms, simply by creating us, in the first place.
My view is that the 2nd amendment simply states the obvious: that there is no class of humanity that is denied what other humans have access to. If any people may bear weapons, then all people may bear weapons.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant any right. It restricts Government from infringing on a recognized natural right.
How well it does that is open to debate. The intent of it, is not.
I'm always reminded of the serf class that were denied access to swords.
Denying a subject people lawful possession of weapons is a very, very old means of attempting to ensure the ruling class remains the ruling class. Sometimes, it doesn't work out the way the ruling class intends...
The now famous martial arts weapon the Nunchaku (nunchucks) was not originally a weapon. It was a farm tool. A rice thresher. Denied swords, spears (bows??) and other recognized weapons by the Japanese, Okinawans learned other uses for the rice thresher....and were obeying the letter of Japanese law while doing it.
Even the most dictatorial rulers do not, and cannot deny farmers the tools they need, because even the rulers have to eat, just like everyone else.
Are we now saying they are indeed a human that no longer has the right? Or are we saying that they had the right, but abused it and have proven they can no longer be trusted to behave in our society?
In principle, since humans do not grant rights, humans cannot take away rights. The violent felon retains all human rights, in principle. What we do is restrict/deny them the exercise (use) of some rights (like locking them up, denying them the right to travel freely). When, THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS they prove they cannot be trusted in society, we restrict their rights, for the safety of all.
In 1968 we passed a law that created a permanent prohibited person status for convicted felons possessing firearms.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...
On the question of ex-felons being allowed to have firearms, I once listened to a lecture on domestic violence, and something that stuck to me was "THE MOST RELIABLE INDICATOR OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE IS PAST PERFORMANCE".
And yet, when you look at investments and buying stocks they take great pains to tell you just the opposite, that past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Some people DO change. Most don't.
Where I think we screwed up is the blanket "felony conviction" term because there are so many non-violent (and in some cases non-harmful) offenses that are classed as felonies. Rather than spending the effort, time, and money to look at each case for what it is, an individual thing, we chose a one size covers all approach, and we are seeing the results of that, to this day.
