The "collective" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes no sense. If it's not an individual right, then why bother writing it? The government certainly doesn't need a law giving it the right to carry guns when citizens can't. That's the default, and Jefferson and friends wouldn't waste their time on such a law. It would be like passing a law saying that only the government can tax people. Duh! The other collective interpretation claims that the 2nd only refers to people in militias, ostensibly so that states can resist the federal government in times of internal strife. But if there's a fight between D.C. and a state, would the state not arm itself but for the 2nd Amendment? "Well we'd really like to fight, but according to our current enemy, the Federal Government, we don't have the right to bear arms, so I guess we'll just throw sticks." Again, no need to write a law giving militias the right to bear arms. The ONLY logical reason for the founding fathers to write the 2nd Amendment is to protect an individual right. Anything else denies logic and the intentions of the authors as written in the Federalist Papers and other historical sources.