You certainly can say that the notion of militia has evolved into state and local police forces - comprised of professionals rather than the "ordinary citizenry". In this case, the 2nd amendment exact original intent isn't the case here, tho I would argue that individual citizens can be considered an "adjunct" to official law enforcement, and that we can now claim that the 2nd amendment protects our individual right (as opposed to only "collective") right to own guns.
I think, I regard the possession of guns as a popular rather than an individual right.
I'd have to disagree there. That argument has been used by the gun control crowd, that doesn't realize that society does change, and the specific terms and meanings of words will change with it. The Founders were against tyranny of all sorts, and, to them, an armed citizenry really meant individual citizens, not some amorphous collective.
"individual citizens?" As Justice Storey noted more than 150 years ago, the original notion of militia has gradually disappeared, but as a social institution it was analogoous to the jury, an institution that has also had its character changed during the last two centuries. Rugged individualism is a concept better viewed in an urban environment than in a rurtal community On the frontier,individual households were exposed to attack by indian raiders and white drifters, but the best security was, in the end, common force. Hard to mount a posse unless it already has arms at the ready. People living in scattered farms probably knew each other better than most of us know our neighbors in the suburbs. That's why guns were kept loaded, in case strangers showed up.