Yet the wording is "to keep and bear arms", not "to carry and possess"; the focus is less on just having guns, as covered by "keep", but the necessity to use arms in defense of a free State. Hence "to bear". Additionally, to bear itself has within its definition the functional use of the object. Thus to bear arms carries with in it the functional use of arms, or to fight. Thomas Jefferson envisioned revolution as a proper tool of the People to keep the government in check. Or do away with it completely should it grow too offensive to the natural rights and liberties of the People. Everything about the 2nd amendment is in defense of a free State, which means that one must be allowed to use their guns, not just keep them. It's because of this necessity of defense that the right of the People to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon.
As for natural rights, I have a hard time understanding how people can completely reject them. But because of that difference, we will indeed have fundamental differences which are irreconcilable in regards to the Constitution and the few example rights it had listed.
And it's fine if you want to label what I said as "originalist", but I personally make no claims to originalist. Much of what I call for may line up best with that line of thought, but the goal is expanding the freedoms and liberties of the People which may not line up with strict "originalist" arguments. I lay claim to minarchism as there is a necessity for government and some things it can do well to benefit the People; however, it is very easy to get too much government and too much government is contrary to the purpose thereof. Thus you either control it or destroy it. Though to clarify, the destroying isn't an endorsement of anarchy as anarchy doesn't work. But rather it is the right of the People to construct for themselves a government which best meets their needs and upholds their rights and liberties.