Even among people I respect, I've been flushed with arguments which seemingly come mostly from Carol Anderson that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep slaves in their place.
Anderson's arguments, so far as I can tell, are built around the idea that the 2nd Amendment's wording is what it is because the founders and/or framers compromised with the likes of Patrick Henry and George Mason - Southerners - to make militias armed and operated by individual states rather than the federal government to ensure that the states could put down any potential revolts or insurrections by the slave population.
The problem is that she has less than zero evidence to support this.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that she resorted to pointing to the NRA's innocuous statement about the Killing of Philando Castile as evidence of her claims.
It's hard to express how dumb that is. I mean, Jesus, the NRA may have made an innocuous statement about an act of evil by the state; but, it's more than BLM did after Ledell Lee was murdered by the state. Last I checked, the NRA wasn't a branch of government and they had nothing to do with the original wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Still, I would dare anybody who thinks that Anderson's view of history is correct to find any quotes from Madison or Jefferson or anybody that explicitly said that they supported the right of white people to have guns to keep down black people.
The entire Bill of Rights is built around restraining the government and empowering the people. Madison made it very clear that when he said the words, "free state" he meant "free state." As in, he was referring to the protection of a state of free people.
Jefferson went even further in his Tree of Liberty letter. Jefferson believed that there should be an armed rebellion every twenty years. "Let them take arms. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is its natural manure." Does that sound like the language of a dude who wants to arm people so that they can put down an uprising?
So far as I can tell, Anderson's work on this issue is paper thin and worthy of less respect than the 1619 Project, which has also been thoroughly debunked. There's nothing groundbreaking nor scholarly about mentioning that the USA has a history of racism and hypocrisy and that we haven't been perfect in upholding our liberal values. You don't have to look ten minutes into the past to see the US government fucking something up.
The point remains that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is pretty fucking clear - it is necessary for citizens to be armed to restrain the state. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is the same as the 1st. Speech and guns are dangerous - they're important because they're dangerous - and that's why the state cannot, should not, and shall not have a monopoly over them.