An accurate but historically ignorant argument.
The American Bill of Rights was preceded by almost 100 years by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which formally recognized pre-existing rights of English citizens recently denied by the English government under James II. This was an effect of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, by which the Whigs won final victory over royal absolutism.
When the American colonists spoke of “the rights of Englishmen,” they were almost always referring to rights as outlined in the 1689 Bill of Rights. I find it extremely odd that this document is so poorly known in America.
The 1689 Bill says, “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
This is an obvious precursor to our 2nd Amendment, though it of course is severely limited, recognizing limitations on the right by religion, by class and by future laws. Most other European countries allowed bearing of arms by some citizens, those thought likely to support the government, usually limited by class and religion.
The 2nd Amendment removed all these restrictions and recognized the natural law right of ALL people to keep and bear arms regardless of their status or religion, and removing the right of laws to infringe on this right.
IOW, the 2nd was not a novel document. All states had recognized the right of some groups to keep and bear arms. The 2nd merely extended these rights to all men, in keeping with the equal rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence.
“All states had recognized the right of some groups to keep and bear arms.”
When I posted this I was using “state” in its original sense of “country,” not of an American state.