“Modern” public discourse ignores and obfuscates the First Debates In Congress. Those debates establishes exactly what they were trying to do when they voted on what became known as the Bill of Rights.
What's even more interesting is the arguments put forth by Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts (we get the term “gerrymandering” from his namesake) on said Amendment and it's original wording:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
First, what become clear, they weren't debating a “collective” right but an individual right. Modern authoritarians sow deception and lies when they claim a “collective” right of the States to arm militias. States, if you recall, are not “a person” with a Scrupulosity complex.
As wiki describes it: “...is characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues...” “Scrupulosity was formerly called scruples in religious contexts, but the word scruples now commonly refers to a troubling of the conscience rather than to the disorder.”
At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment it's clear they were referring to the latter. A person whom through religious teachings or personal beliefs does not believe in war or killing, ie the Amish and Quakers.
It was because of Mr. Gerry's arguments above why the First Congress deleted the last line of the 2nd Amendment. Obviously the 2nd A wasn't granting our central/federal government authority or powers to define or “regulate” who was allowed to keep and bear arms, all had that unalienable right, if they so desired.
The next point that needs to be addressed is where and how authoritarians distract and mislead. They argue against “the purpose” of owning arms. “It's for Hunting & Sport” or “Defeatn' the bad ol gubmint”.
While Mr. Gerry stated his understanding of why they were adding a Bill of Rights:
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed..
His arguments reveal they are there to prevent the “mal-administration” of government or government overreach. Those enumerated rights restricts our government. Our rights are not created through their addition to the Constitution, but preexist it. It has no authority, implied or otherwise, to regulate them.
The purpose of free speech, the intent of religion or desires for firearm ownership are immaterial.
We possess these unalienable rights, to do with as we please. Government cannot dictate, as the authoritarians among us wish to believe, the reasons for how, when or why we exercise these rights.