A person’s right to self-protection with a gun? That right was only protected for a certain class of citizens -- primarily white, male landowners.
Non-whites didn't have that right protected. Nor women, children, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, Indians, prisoners, the insane ... quite a few persons did not have that right protected.
Now, that's not to say they couldn't have guns. Just that their right to have them wasn't protected.
That right was Constitutionally protected for "the people", a term which was not more narrowly defined in the Constitution. That actual active protection varied among discernable groups was a matter of imperfect implementation of protection by fallible biased humans - just as voting, citizenship, etc. all started as primarily improperly limited to white male landowners, and those not included subsequently had to fight (legally and physically) for inclusion.
It's the 21st Century, RP - arguing to limit the protection of enumerated rights to a subclass of people in general (and let's stick to your "white, male landowners" allegation, not some red herring) is legally, politically, and socially very passe.
Not exactly correct.
Even Professor Amar was clear on this:
As scholars such as Stephen Halbrook, Michael Kent Curtis, Robert Cottrol, and Ray Diamond have documented in great detail, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment strongly believed in an individual right to own and keep guns in one's home for self-protection. Most obviously, blacks and Unionists down South could not always count on the local police to keep white night-riders at bay. When guns were outlawed, only Klansmen would have guns. Thus, the Reconstruction Congress made quite clear that a right to keep a gun at home for self-protection was indeed a constitutional right--a true "privilege" or "immunity" of citizens.