If that was what those who passed it truly meant, then why didn't they write it that way?
It seems odd that they would choose to say something they didn't mean, if they didn't mean that The People have the right to keep and bear arms. If they meant that "members of the militia have the right to keep and bear arms" or "The People have the right to keep and bear militia arms" or whatever, then I think they could have written that.
Oh, they meant that. Allow me the liberty to rephrase it as to the way I interpret it:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of a Militia shall not be infringed by the federal government.
I guess they didn't write it that way because they thought it would be redundant.
Of course, I can ask you the same question. If the second amendment protected an individual right, why didn't it simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Or, even better, "The right of all citizens to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."