The anti-gunners attempted to interpret "bear arms" to mean something like "to participate in armed combat". They were trying to tie Militia service to the Second Amendment protection. The courts were required then to clarify that to "bear arms" means to carry them.
I don't agree that only arms which may be carried by a single person are those protected.
I have always appreciated the following:
"A well-educated Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Does this mean only voters can keep and read books? Does this mean only people who can read are allowed to keep books. Does this mean that libraries can be banned because libraries are not people? Does this mean that people are allowed to read books but are not allowed to write them? May newspapers be banned because they are not books? Can the government require that you read a book before you can keep it? Would the government be justified in limiting how many books one may read or keep? Are there books which are just so dangerous that government may ban them?
What can possibly justify different answers to the above questions when it involves "arms" and not "books"?
Although the above questions may seem rather frivolous, I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Here it is a felony to put a three-ounce plastic pistol grip on an otherwise legal rifle.
It goes farther back then that, to the original ratification, to be precise. This falls into the definition that I described previously. IMHO the argument presented by the pro-2dA group at the time did so horrendously. They attempted to include sporting and hunting in the rationale and it was an abject failure, with ripple effects still being felt. The militia clause was conflated with the RKBA instead of being used to mutually support each other.
I don't agree that only arms which may be carried by a single person are those protected.
This is where we merely have a defnitional disagreement. I agree, fundamentally, that all people should be able to own whatever weapon that they can afford, but from a Constitutionally legal standpoint, I just do not believe it is there.
"A well-educated Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
What can possibly justify different answers to the above questions when it involves "arms" and not "books"?
This would rest on the differences between the representation of the 2dA that you provide and the 2dA itself. Your phrase infers a requirement that people read in order to be educated. The 2dA infers a need to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. The difference might be that one does not have to read in order to be well-educated. It would help, but not required. A militia needs to be practiced in weaponry and have it available in order to be prepared when called. I know I am over simplifying it, but I hope you get my gist.