Good God, man. Listen to your shrieking.
I mean, "WHITE SUPREMACY AND THE CHURCH OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!" They've really got you programmed, don't they? People like you are precisely the reason it's so hard to have a reasoned discussion about this. It's all shrill hysteria and revisionism with you people. Zero understanding of even the most basic tenets of the history of the time. The ultimate problem is that the 2nd was written given the conditions of the 18th century. And now we have to find a way to reconcile that 18th century provision with 21st century problems. The simple fact is that American colonists (and people everywhere else in the colonized world) were armed simply as a consequence of being on a frontier with plentiful game. A distant second to this would have been defense. In America, the right to bear arms was enshrined in the constitution because, as it happened, having that armed population is what allowed the US to come into existence to begin with. That's the difference between the US and other spinoffs from the British Empire in this sense. People were armed because they were probably going to be eating game that winter. But at the time, hunting arms weren't really that dissimilar to military ones. Superior, even, in most cases.
The point I was making in that single offhand sentence before you pissed yourself and ignored the rest of my post is simply that "gun control" in the latter half 18th century didn't have anything whatsoever to do with our 21st century understanding of it, and trying to draw parallels requires one to completely ignore the historical context and realities in order to try to twist some sort of revisionist fantasy out of it.
You are flatly incorrect and will remain so. The end. Jesus Christ I cannot roll my eyes any harder at that sort of ignorant display.