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.
Now you're just making things up.
Was there a problem with the first amendment where people were saying, "Oh, that doesn't protect political speech", so the Founders addressed that problem by writing the second amendment differently?
"is specifically detailed that an armed citizenry, which can organize itself without restriction, is necessary for a free State"
My copy does not say an armed citizenry is necessary for a free state. My copy says a well regulated Militia is necesary to the security of a free state.
(By the way. If civilians were armed, they were armed with rifles -- expensive, but accurate for hunting and self defense. The Militia used smooth bore muskets -- cheap, fast loading, and effective in short-range volley fire. An "armed" citizenry, not trained in musket volley fire, was not much use.)