"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
-- UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
(This U.S. Supreme Court holding was referenced in the Parker case.)
I think that you are reading this incorrectly: I DON'T read this decision as meaning that those who are "part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community" doesn't include women. Blacks, in 1792, may have been different. BUT there is no way on Earth for you to convince me that in 1792 a non-propertied woman had no protections whatsoever under those Amendments referencing "the people."
I'll ask you again: Do you believe that a white woman who did not own property in 1792 could have legally been tortured by agents of the federal government? Note that this would clearly have not been legal to do to a property-owning, adult white male, under the terms of the 8th Amendment.
If you answer "yes" to that, you'll at least be consistent. You'll also be wrong, and prove yourself as such to everyone here. If you answer "no" to that, then your interpretation is wrong. Bottom line: YOU ARE WRONG.
It's the same argument robertpaulsen has been making on other threads, which is that only white property owning males constituted the "the people" at the time. There is however inconsistency in the posts of his because he also says "the people" was clearly defined in the Militia Act of 1792 but that required ALL white males between 18 and 45 to enroll whether property owners or not.
It's obvious to most of us though "the people" in 1791 and as confirmed by court rulings of that era meant all free citizens, including women who were indeed protected by the BoR. Since they obviously would not serve in a militia that implies the 2nd Amendment as with all the amendments referred to everyone and not just a select group of people and that it would be limited in practice to them only.