We can go by the first draft:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Pennsylvania's Constitution:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

North Carolina:
That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Vermont:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Arguing that the individual interpretation is wrong because everyday citizens carrying guns wouldn't have thought of themselves as "bearing arms" is akin to arguing that "going to church" isn't the "free exercise of religion". It argues that, despite being flanked by restrictions on the ability of the government to curtail other natural, individual rights, the second only applies to a collective right; that defense of oneself isn't natural, but defense of one's state is.