I agree they didn't object to an armed citizenry. Far from it. But that's not what they intended for the defense of the state. For that they wanted a select Militia. And they wanted their arms protected from federal infringement.
There is absolutely no reason for the second amendment to be written the way it was if it simply protected the right of citizens/individuals/persons to keep and bear arms. None.
State constitutions protect that right.
Sure there was. It was to prevent people from saying "Oh, it's sbout hunting guns", or "It's about having home protection".
The second amendment is specifically detailed that an armed citizenry, which can organize itself without restriction, is necessary for a free State. It was that organized militia tradition that allowed us to overthrow the tyrannical government that was oppressing us.
If there were not an armed citizenry, the creep of tyranny would again take over.
This is why the anti-federalists pushed for the Bill of Rights. That is why the Founders gave the Bill of Rights. It was to explain, in writing, those Rights that our Founders saw as self-evident.
Without an armed citizenry, there could be no well regulated militia. Without a well regulated militia, there could be no security of Freedom from the government.
The rights are not to be infringed because it is necessary for the security of a free State.