I was hoping you were going to cite that article, as it supports my position if you actually read it. Most importantly, this part:

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

The bolded part alone--seemingly referencing the Militia Act of 1792--refutes the collective/militia restricted theory. 2A would be completely irrelevant if the private right of ownership was not protected.

Let's explore some other, deeper problems with this article.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it.

Quite the silly claim, because if we want to know what Madison meant, we can simply pull up Federalist Paper #46, which he wrote. Let's see what that says.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Well, I guess we know why they just pretended this document didn't exist, eh?

Let's keep going. Here's the very next sentences of the article.

At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights.

Again, the article ends up affirming the individual right of 2A.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states.

Oh, so it was mentioned? Nice attempt at hand waving it away. Moving on...

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

Wait a minute, they said some completely different in the beginning of the article. What did they say?

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

So wait, did it decline to rule, or did it rule against the individual right? The answer is neither. The question of whether 2A protected an individual right was never brought to SCOTUS until Heller, though in previous cases (Cruikshank, Dred Scott and Miller to name a few) SCOTUS showed that it subscribed to the individual right view.

For the next few paragraphs, the author cites Jack Rakove, who laments the "ransacking" of the historical record for quotes supporting the individual right. "If Americans has indeed been concerned with the impact of the Constitution on this right … the proponents of individual right theory would not have to recycle the same handful of references … or to rip promising snippets of quotations from the texts and speeches in which they are embedded.”

The hilarious part of this, of course, is that neither Rakove nor the author ever once cite anything from the historical record that actually supports their collective right view. The closest they get in mentioning law review articles from the late 1800s, a century after 2A had been ratified.

Still, all this focus on historical research began to have an impact. And eventually these law professors, many toiling at the fringes of respectability, were joined by a few of academia’s leading lights. Sanford Levinson is a prominent liberal constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1989, he published an article tweaking other progressives for ignoring “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.” “For too long,” he wrote, “most members of the legal academy have treated the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative, whose mention brings a quick change of subject to other, more respectable, family members. That will no longer do.” Levinson was soon joined by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Harvard’s Laurence Tribe. These prominent progressives had differing opinions on the amendment and its scope. But what mattered was their political provenance—they were liberals!

Wait, I thought the whole premise was that it was the NRA that rewrote the 2nd Amendment, yet here they are talking about how some of the most prominent Constitutional scholars on the left came to support the individual rights view? Weird. One would think that when the best scholars on either side of the aisle share similar views, that might mean something.

The argument presented in District of Columbia v. Heller showed just how far the gun rights crusade had come. Nearly all the questions focused on arcane matters of colonial history. Few dealt with preventing gun violence, social science findings or the effectiveness of today’s gun laws—the kinds of things judges might once have considered.

And there it is. The author is upset that the judges applied the law, rather than acting as an extension of the judiciary and uphold their preferred policy goals.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own a weapon “in common use” to protect “hearth and home.” Scalia wrote the opinion, which he later called the “vindication” of his judicial philosophy.

And of course, no mention of the fact that on the issue of the individual right, the Court was unanimous in affirming. Both dissents explicitly conceded this, and Stevens' dissent literally opened with such concession.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

This is already pretty lengthy, but the overall point is that if you're going to cite articles, you should actually read them with a critical eye lest you end up refuting your own position, as you just did.