Regarding the collective right, those on the left always interpret it to mean the right of the state (usually via the National Guard or the military), not a right of any collection of citizens. That is what I cannot understand: how do these people understand "the people" in the First Amendment to mean absolutely an individual right, but when "the people" is used in the second, it now means a state right?
Yes. But at the time it was written, "the people" did not refer to all persons.
"the original meaning is how it should be interpreted"
I agree. If the Founders meant everyone, they would have said "all persons" or at least "all citizens". They didn't. They meant "a particular group" so they used the phrase "the people". (Just as they did in Article I, Section 2).
Granted, the definition of the group has changed over time. It still doesn't mean "all persons".
"Regarding the collective right, those on the left always interpret it to mean the right of the state (usually via the National Guard or the military), not a right of any collection of citizens."
Here's how the second amendment is read by those having a "collective right" interpretation:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people individuals in well regulated Militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (by the federal government).”
"how do these people understand "the people" in the First Amendment to mean absolutely an individual right"
The first amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", but that is an individual right only used when assembling as a group. The courts have ruled that permits may be required -- the permit only protects a particular group.
I don't know what you're referring to.
The communitarian socialists among us insist it doesn't.
They say the 2nd refers to a "collective right", meaning those in a Militia, collectively, have their RKBA protected from only federal infringement, and that States have the power to ignore our inalienable rights.
Interesting interpretation. Wasn't the Constitution later amended to extend the rights to the other groups (non-whites, women)?
Communitarian socialists simply deny that the 14th 'incorporated' our rights to arms within the term "life, liberty, or property".
Regarding the collective right, those on the left always interpret it to mean the right of the state - That is what I cannot understand: how do these people understand "the people" in the First Amendment to mean absolutely an individual right, but when "the people" is used in the second, it now means a state right?
To these socialists, people in groups can use majority rule to 'regulate' [read infringe/prohibit] any right, - virtually out of existence.
No amendments needed to prohibit.
The second amendment is read by socialistic communitarians who have a "collective right" interpretation as meaning:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms of only the people enrolled in those well regulated Militias shall not be infringed (by the federal government).
All other people are decreed to be defenseless at the whim of the States.