That's like saying liberty is inalienable, but liberty outside of a particular enclosed space is not. When you constrain the method of exercise of a right, you reduce it from real to theoretical.
Moreover, you described property as one of the inalienable basics. How then do you justify disallowing the basic ownership of the Glock, let alone its use for defensive purposes? How can you say you have the right to property, but only the property approved by the government? How can you say you have the right to defend your life, but only the weapons approved by the government? And what is to prevent the government from limiting the choices of approved weapons or property to the point of inaccessibility, and thereby completely alienating the inalienable?
What's theoretical about defending yourself with a stick instead of a gun? I'd really like you to explain yourself.
"How then do you justify disallowing the basic ownership of the Glock"
It's a bit more than property, is it not? Render it incapable of ever firing and I'll defend your right to own it as property. Deal?
"How can you say you have the right to defend your life, but only the weapons approved by the government?"
It's called the police power of a state. Look it up. Educate yourself.
"And what is to prevent the government from limiting the choices of approved weapons ... to the point of inaccessibility"
Then that would interfere with the defense of the country, which then makes it a national issue..