...
Because of that, it's easier to examine the relationship between those who comprised "the people" in 1792 and those who comprised the Militia in 1792. Turns out they were the same individuals.
The Militia Act of 1792 defines the militia as "... each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."
So, unless you are asserting that any white male over the age of 45 can no longer participate in electing House representatives, those two groups are NOT the same. One is a subset of the other.
The Militia is a subset of "the People."
Over time, "the people" to wit voters has been challenged as unconstitutionally limited, and has been subsequently been expanded to include all but children, felons and non-citizens. Ergo, his "white male citizen landowners" claim was squashed decades ago. He can't claim that "the people" per the 2ndA today must be limited not to "the people" per voters today, but instead somehow must be limited to "the people" per voters in 1792. If he's going to claim that voting "people" are the same as 2ndA "people" (a viable theory), then today anyone who can register to vote can enjoy RKBA - and that includes ALL adult non-felon citizens.
So thank you, rp, for agreeing that anyone who can, today, register to vote has a 2ndA-protected right to keep & bear arms. Pity you insist on dancing around the subject and refuse to actually SAY it.