If they did, you might have a valid point.
But the term used was, "in defense of self and state". I interpret that as, in battle, the weapon was to be used to defend yourself and your country.
You're interpreting the phrase as though it reads, "in defense of self or state".
Yep, the right to bear arms in defense of themselves, and the right to bear arms in defense of the state. The grammer does not require they do both at the same time. Consider that a militiamen could be bearing arms in a tacticially offensive manner, and thus would not be defending himself, but strategically (or operationally) be defending the state. If he has the right do the later and not the former, then he also has the right do the former and not the latter. Or to do both at the same time.