These were all ratified together, by the same people, at the same time, with the same understanding of English. You’ll find my simple question below.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The concept of a right retained by a state is clearly expressed in the Tenth Amendment. If the founding generation meant to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the states alone and not to individuals, they could have have used that language in the Second Amendment. Instead, they used the language of individual rights.
How could the term “the people” have meant “individuals” to the founding generation in all of these Amendments except the Second?