mayosligo, you are correct. From Scott v. Sandford
[If the Constitution applied equally to blacks] It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
I quoted the whole block because the context is very important. One group wants to maintain dominion over another. The only way to do that is either through a monopoly or a sizable disparity of force.
This has been the way of things since our ancestors first realized that tools could be used to hurt another human being. Jews were often disallowed weapons in medieval Europe. The Muslims disarmed the dhimmi. The Byzantines disarmed the Turks. The Manchu disarmed the Dungan. The list goes on.
Now, do I believe Joe Biden wants me disarmed so he can put on a crown and prance around while he trashes my living room? Not really, but I'm guessing he won't fire his Secret Service detail either.
And in a free society like ours, that distinction should be considered repugnant and unacceptable.