“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it were a collective right it would read like this:
“A well funded continental army being necessary to the security of the free States, the rights of the regulated militias to be armed shall not be infringed.”
If it were collective then why does it state that a militia must bear arms, and the ability for a militia to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would be redundant. The only purpose a militia serves is to bear arms, I know a militia has to bear arms, you don’t have to tell me a militia bears arms. What kind of moron would write that?
Then again .... if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gosh. Why did they add all that Militia clutter?
Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.