Yes, mostly, but more importantly, no.
The original draft of the 2nd amendment included the right of conscience or being scrupulous to bearing arms. They mean the same: not wanting to engage in war.
It seems Jefferson was big on the idea.
Other legislators thought people would abuse it but considered that one could pay a fee or send another person take his place, but then decided that would violate the true beliefs of someone that objected to killing. They dropped the idea and what remained is pretty much the complete 2nd amendment we see today.
A right simply means not a wrong thing to do; what is correct. For the men in that room, a right of the people is to keep and bear arms, to the security of a free state. This amendment, however, was not addressing each individual.
The second amendment is truly addressing the US government and only enumerates a collective right. One who excercises pacifism in earnest would have been respected by these men.
Plus, they made all your unenumerated rights equally protected or not disparaged. They mean the same. A right to freedom of conscience is as much a right as drinking water or giving birth. That is why it could be removed without truly losing it. A right has nothing to do with it being written down, those are just reminders.
Grammatically, the rights were there to encapsulate ideas, to enshrine ideals for the government to live by.
In the moral sense, these rights are an individual's divine knowledge received at the time of our creation.
To further elucidate on this point. The Militia Acts were instituted by Congress. All men were to enlist in the militia and arm themselves. A relatively small fine could be paid in lieu of this duty.
Militia was a government power, to make laws with as the government pleased, but to bear arms reamaind a freedom. Sp, in a round about way, it left the right not to bear arms untouched. However, amendments do not grant rights.