So what? Geez Louise. You just got finished saying that "the people" meant "all citizens" and now you concede that it didn't mean women and children and you say, "So what?" That doesn't bother you?
"The people are the citizens"
Here we go again. You have no shame.
"Now I acknowledge that in the past some people have had have their rights denied for various reasons"
Yes, it's possible that their rights were unconstitutionally denied for 200 years. Then again, it's possible that THEY NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO VOTE. What do you think is more likely?
"So now women and minorities are enfranchised, and 45 is no longer old"
That is correct. The definition of "the people" has changed over time. But the Founder's original intent, the Founder's original meaning of "the people", were those white, male, citizen landowners who were entitled to vote and formed the group from which some were selected for Militia duty.
It bothers me not one bit. As long as evolving understanding of the language is in the direction of more liberty for more people, and less power for government to encroach, I favor it. Since you have beat the horse to death that blacks were prohibited from their rights under "original intent", shall I conclude you wish to return to that? After all, most of the original gun laws you love and the court decisions you site with relish were aimed at preventing them a means to defend themselves.
That is correct. The definition of "the people" has changed over time. But the Founder's original intent, the Founder's original meaning of "the people", were those white, male, citizen landowners who were entitled to vote and formed the group from which some were selected for Militia duty.
And again you wring a pound of lie from an ounce of truth. If you are saying that 16th century norms were too restrictive as concerns women and minorities, I agree. All the other crap you invented about who "the people" are is just that. "The people" in the 2A have a right to keep personal arms, separate any militia duty. And if those "people" include a greater share of the populace today than previously, that is a good thing.
Besides, you still haven't shown me where only those eligible to vote have rights. Are you saying women could be subject to unreasonable searches because they couldn't vote? Could they be imprisoned without trial for writing their opinions? Could the government arrest them for attending church? Perhaps they could be drawn an quartered because they weren't allowed to vote? If not, why not? See how stupid your assertion is?