If I recall from my reading of the Federalist Papers (admitedly 20+ years ago), the issue of the "rights of the people" were directly mostly towards protection from a potentially oppressive government.
But, discussion in the papers also acknowledged that in ensuring the "rights of the people, the goivernment may also need to protect one faction (or group) of "the people" from the potential excesses or abuses of another faction.
Thus...IMO, the "rights of the people" are not absolute in the Constitution
My new second amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be absolute, but may be subject to reasonable regulation for the protection of the people.
Several of the amendments in the BOR are intentionally vague in a simlar manner....."in a manner prescribed by law", "unreasonable search and seizure", "probable cause", "excessive fines", "cruel and unusual punishment".
All require Judicial interpretation....thats why the Constitution also created a federal judiciary.