Instead, they excluded those who weren't allowed to vote -- women and blacks.
You misread what I meant - I meant that IF the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had wished to exclude women and blacks from the RKBA, they could have done so with a simple clause. They didn't do so, and that is a matter of the GREATEST significance.
Do you have any understanding of the 9th Amendment? To refresh your memory, it says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, the fact that the Constitution fails to specifically protect the RKBA of women and blacks (or, for that matter, people older than age 45 who are not members of the militia, or non-owners of property) does NOT mean that those rights don't exist or are not protected (by the 9th Amendment, if not also by the 2nd).
Further, look at the 10th Amendment:
"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."
This means that unless the United States is specifically given the power to deny women and blacks (and older folks, and non-owners of property) the RKBA, THEN THAT POWER DOES NOT EXIST.
Do you get it, you statist? The Constitution created a necessary evil - a powerful central government. However, the Founders decided to specifically limit the powers of that government (Amendments 9 and 10), to divide the power between 2 branches (though the Marbury v. Madison case broadened that to 3 branches), and to further limit the government with a series of Amendments which later became known as the Bill of Rights. IOW, Government gets the minimum power necessary to have an orderly and just society, and the people get the rest (or the states - as the people decide is best). WE THE PEOPLE are sovereign here, NOT the government.
BTW, are you cognizent of the fact that the promise of the basic terms of the BOR was part and parcel of the consideration for the states to ratify the Constitution? Whether you are aware of this or not, tell me what happens when one party to a contract fails to live up to the terms of that contract? It is call "breach of contract," and generally allows the other party (parties) to stop abiding by the terms of the contract. Think about what that means in terms of this country - THAT is what a statist decision like you clearly would like to see would push us toward.