That is correct. I never meant to imply otherwise.
The reasons I went back to 1792 were that a) we had a well regulated Militia, b) the membership of the Militia was clearly defined in the Militia Act of 1792) and, c) "the people" were clearly defined in Article I, Section 2 as the enfranchised body politic.
To determine the original meaning of the Founding Fathers, we see that "the people" of the second amendment = "the people" of Article I, Section 2 = the enfranchised body politic (ie., the voters) = adult, white, male citizens = Militia members.
My conclusion from this is that the second amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms of those individuals in a well regulated Militia from federal infringement. It's an individual right exercised collectively (similar to voting).
If the right to keep and bear arms also encompassed hunting and self defense and other reasons, it would make no sense to limit the protection of this right to such a small group of individuals (less than 20% of the population in 1792). I would think the second amendment, in that case, would read, "the right of all free persons" or "the right of all citizens".
The 14th signified the begining of some of that correction from the 2/5ths of a citizen for a slave, or free black. It also signified the equality of man and woman in the judicial process, BUT still denied her the right to choose her leaders. That was corrected in the 19th Amendment.
As you said in 1792, 'the people' signified white, free, males. The founders must have realized this would change over time. A lot of them could not and would not ever support slavery, and knew that time would bear that stance out. Same with women. Without that support, a lot of the founders would not have even attempted this great experiment. And that too had to weigh heavily on the mind of Madison as he sought a way to accomodate the culture of the day against what was to come later.
By using the term 'the people' he provided for inclusion of ALL citizens, man or woman in the rights of being Americans. Using the Amendment process was the means of making that foresight correctable.
Otherwise, why is the phrase 'the people' used, and not 'white, Anglo males'? It would define exactly who, and not allow for any other interpretation.
We can read their writings. Such as:
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed29.htm
Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped
James Madison in Federalist No. 46
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed46.htm
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 28
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed28.htm
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
The intent was not limited to members of the militia.