It is clear the Bill of Rights does not apply equally to all citizens.
One position holds that certain groups and people have enhanced rights, while other groups have restrictions on their rights. This position holds that individuals do not have individual Bill of Rights protections. It holds that private citizens should not own firearms, certain firearms, and ammunition. Specific religions do not have equal rights of other religions. Citizen rights to property, search, and seizure by government is not a consideration with eminent domain, or anti-terrorism programs.
Two GOP candidates presented the other two cases for the application of the Bill of Rights. One contender advocated the government has the obligation to search citizen activities to protect the country from terrorists. The opposing contender advocated a constructionist view of the Bill of Rights, the government can only violate the Bill of Rights based upon probable cause.
Since Dodge City in the 1880's, governments have justified the limitations of the Bill of Rights for the "common good."
The Framers of the Constitution proposed by passing the Bill of Rights, equality could be reached if every citizen had equal protection of the individual rights. In other words, if criminals know each citizen has the right to be armed and criminals do not, there is equality for the law biding citizen.
It appears the current political climate is to restrict citizen rights while offering sanctuary, release, and pardons to criminal behaviors while justifying the restrictions in Constitutional protections and procedures to restrict the behaviors of law biding citizens. The point is this, fighting to keep the Second Amendment intact seems to be linked to the effort to protect all of the Bill of Rights and close attention to the cornucopia of candidates at all levels of government.