Madison is clear in his introduction to his draft for what became the Bill Of Rights that there are different classes of rights. He already believed the Constitution protected Natural Right because the new government was given delegated powers and no more. He believed in that context all retained rights were secure. He also worried to enumerate some rights in a Bill Of Rights wold place the unenumerated rights at risk. Madison also mentions rights he did not believe were Natural Rights but might be desirable given the powers the new government had. He gives the example of a trial by jury. He refers to them as positive rights.
The Bill of Rights is mostly positive rights...rights that need not exist if not for the powers of the new government. The Second falls into this category. The Constitution created the new militia... Congress could set standards and discipline it, but there were fears Congress could disarm its creation. Who might worry? The slave states that used the militia to protect slavery. Those who may have feared the militia might be needed to counter a standing army might also have wanted this protection. And while the Second sounds like it protects an individual right, it's clear from the language itself, a well-regulated militia is central to its meaning.
I'm not one who believes the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun outside the context of this well-regulated militia. If there was a right to own a gun for other purposes such as self-protection, hunting etc... I believe it's protected by the greater Constitution and reaffirmed in the Ninth Amendment... at least that right was protected for The People... the freemen of the day who wrote the Constitution for themselves. Clearly the right to own guns was never intended for slaves any more than were any of the other rights in the Bill Of Rights.
But in District of Columbia v Heller the USSC ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. Later in McDonald v Chicago, this ruling was applied to the states. If that's the case... what in the minds of these conservative justices was the status of this individual firearm right in those 42 months between the ratification of the Constitution in June 1788, and the ratification of the Bill Of Rights in Dec 1791? The USSC rulings seem to indicate this individual right was NOT protected until the Second was ratified.
Has the USSC has unwittingly undercut the argument that the construction of the Constitution itself protected Natural Rights such as the right to own a firearm for personal protection by the very nature of limited government... and now only enumerated, positive, rights deserve protection? I suspect the Right wing would prefer to bastardize the Second to invent an individual right there than look to the Constitution or the Ninth lest they find those unenumerated rights which the Right loathes: same sex marriage, birth control, abortion etc. As one Right winger once wrote in a discussion... we don't need any more rights than the enumerated ones. This may explain the Right's war on the Ninth. Better to declare it an ink blot on the Constitution rather than the Rosetta Stone to interpret the Constitution... all because they so cherish the Framers and the Constitution itself.