the 64 Million Dollar Question!

If the right to keep and bear arms is so important: why didn't Maryland, New York, and New Jersey from the original 13 colonies adopt these provisions in their constitutions?  Indeed, why do only 44 states have such provisions.

California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York do not have "right to keep and bear arms" provisions in their state constitutions.

I would add that one of the original colonies also added this provisions to its constitutions in recent time (Delaware).
Here's a sampling:

• Connecticut:  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.  Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).  The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
• Delaware:  A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.  Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987). 
•  Massachusetts:  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.  Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
• New Hampshire:  All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.  Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
• Pennsylvania:  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.  Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII, 1776.  
• Virginia:  That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).
• Rhode Island:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842). 

Of these, I find that Massachusetts provision relates only to arms for the common defence and mentions the standing army issue.  In fact, I see that the standing army issue is mentioned in a few of the other original colonies' provisions.
As I said, if this was such an important issue and personal guns were so important: why aren't they mentioned?
Seriously, wouldn't this be top on the list of everybody, the way pro-gunners like telling us how important this "right" happens to be?  Also, why the mentions of the common defence and standing armies if this is about a "personal" right to arms outside that context?
As I said, if you look hard, the pro-gun arguments start to fall apart.
Footnote to this, I didn't add some of the Southern States since the provisions I found appear to be from after the Civil War.
Additionally, this was not an exhaustive study of this topic.
Sources:
State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
NRA-ILA | Guarantees Of The Right To Arms In State constitutions