Actually it was argued, and argued successfully that "the people" in all the instances you mentioned referred to a select group of individuals. In 1792, that description only fit adult, white, male citizens.
See my post #85.
“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)
I don’t interpret “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” as meaning adult white males. It simply doesn’t specify that. All it specifies in “a national community”, which could easily be everyone.
Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment might be struck down on the grounds that “the people” refers, implicitly or otherwise, to white, male adults? I see no explicit reference.