Because, even by your contorted definition of "the people", he's still a part of "the people", white, male, landowner/taxpayer) and thus the second amendment which protects a "right of the people" still protects his right to keep and bear arms.
Otherwise you are saying it's "right of the militiamen", but the Constitution terms it the "right of the people".
If it's a right of the people, then one must ask, which subset. No subset is defined by the language of the second amendment. Although I'm sure you'll say it is, experts in English grammar say otherwise. Thus the phrase "the people" can only refer to the whole people. In fact that's exactly what Chief Judge Joseph Henry Lumpkin, of the Georgia Supreme Court said it meant in Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
Yes, the right of the people as members of a Militia. You keep forgetting the first clause.
"Chief Judge Joseph Henry Lumpkin"
So, "the people" of the second amendment are different than "the people" in Article I, Section 2? I know he said that. Since you cited him, I suppose that means you concur?
Two definitions, maybe more, for the same phrase? Hey, why not? It's a living constitution, right? It means what we say it means.