And it was done. The voters had their say on that question and the Congress had its say. That you don't like how they did it or the conclusion is your problem. Again, no one has appointed you the arbiter here.
People in 1787 weren't F***ing Idiots like they are today
People in 1787 didn't have birth certificates either. What's your point?
Did you find that "Gun" entry yet?
That's probably over your head, so I'll explain it to you in child terms.
Certain aspects of constitutional law are implicit and axiomatic. The reference to the word "Arms" in the constitution implicitly means all normal forms of weapons then in existence at that time. It doesn't have to SPECIFY each and every sort of Weapon meant to be covered.
In the same manner, usage of the term "Natural Born Citizen" is not intended to be specific regarding the means used to determine this status, so long as they are demonstrably accurate. The only requirement is to be provably accurate.
The Normal method for doing this in 1787 would be reference to Baptism records and perhaps the testimony of relatives.
Given that there has been some evolution since then, Certified Original Birth Certificates have become the Normal Way of demonstrating that someone was indeed born in the United States to American Parents, and is therefore regarded as sufficient proof that someone is a "natural born citizen" under even the most stringent criteria.
So to simplify the concept for your kindergarten level mind, "Arms" are to "Guns" what "Natural Born Citizen" is to "Verifiable Original Birth Certificate proof."
Got it?
More like you will need to have this explained to you more times than I care to do so.