[Still Thinking]

So your belief is that since in that day and age, free adult males were considered to some extent the repositories of rights on behalf of their families, that the 2A was not then intended to apply to all citizens? I’m skeptical, but your opinion is at least somewhat arguable. However, it still seems to me to be irrelevant, because pretty much every other right granted “the people” is assumed to apply to citizens in general. Suffrage, etc. One could make the argument that that’s a mistake, but nevertheless, there it is, and I can’t see why bearing arms should be the lone exception to that trend.

[robertpaulsen]

When the Founding fathers wrote "the people" they meant "a particular group". They did NOT mean "all persons". That's the only point I'm trying to make.

Back in 1792, "the people" who were protected by the second amendment were as I described for the reason I described. Over the years, what constitutes "the people" has changed, either by statute or by constitutional amendment. But it still doesn't mean "all persons".