I think you slightly misread something. Peoples rights endowed by our creator is fine and well. The legal tradition that supports them, and is critical, got a start with the Torah, ran through the New Testament, got a big boost with the Magna Carta, the unwritten English Constitution, English Common Law which came here at Jamestown, and developed as American Law in the States---all tradition---not of a government kind, but legal tradition. If anything government has been supportive or hostile to legal tradition depending on who is running the government. I notice RTKBA clauses painstakingly put in State Constitutions. Why would they be there if gee whiz peoples rights are endowed by our creator? Founders who worked on State constitutions realized the whole unwritten constitution concept had by GB had problems, more arguing over what was in it, etc. So the emphasis was to "get it in writing!" States did just that and what they contained is the accumulated legal tradition. There is legal continuity stretching back through when they were colonies and back to England. The colonials of course had rights, the colonies were chartered by the King, rights were extended, but abused which led to the war. Just as today people cite the federal constitution with their grievances, back then people could cite their state constitutions for their grievances and that made the most sense anyway.
Then comes along the District of Columbia. Very little regarding its management is in the Constitution. Nothing is said about its anticipated citizens. That's the problem. They just declared it "open for business" one day, by fiat, no charter, no history, and no legal tradition, no citizens to speak of. What sense would it have made to have a Declaration of Rights styled in the form of Virginia's as an example for citizens it doesn't have? But this they should have done. We wouldn't be having this argument today if they had.
I'm not telling you that you don't have rights, or that DC citizens don't have rights. Sure they have rights and want rights. What I'm saying is that a government that cannot be trusted, and we know wants to sustain a gun ban, is concealing from you the fact that they are denying you this right on the basis that the right isn't written down for DC. How many times during contract disputes did some party in the most petty manner refuse to perform some task that would make sense to do simply because it wasn't spelled out in the contract? That is what is happening here except the other side is refusing to be forthcoming about why, it just steamrolls, and it can because it controls the justice system.
What I'm saying is that a government that cannot be trusted, and we know wants to sustain a gun ban, is concealing from you the fact that they are denying you this right on the basis that the right isn't written down for DC.
If DC is not a State, then they are a creature of the Federal Government, and therefor most certainly beneficiaries of the Constitution and the BOR. And the 2A is very clear about what the citizens rights are.