The founding fathers of the US believed that a well-regulated militia was essential to the security of a free state, and explicitly wrote that clause into the second amendment. Karl Marx also supported gun ownership, for the workers to retain their power and even effect a revolution. What’s common to both of these is the idea of a collective defense, a “well-regulated” maintenance of order.

The Heller decision changed all that (and MacDonald vs Chicago took it further). It essentially made the “well-regulated militia” clause have no effect at all, as if it was just a rhetorical flourish. The context can be clearly seen from writings at the time. The People’s Militia was a real thing all over the US, and e.g. Washington complained bitterly about how inferior their discipline was to actual troops.

Since Heller, we’ve also had massive militarization of police. The actual militias have been considered terrorist organizations. And the NRA idea that anyone has a right to carry a gun anywhere has become embraced by Republicans. Even red flag laws are viewed with suspicion. But the original Republic had the collective concept of a militia — completely neutered today.

Ironically, the people who talk about individual rights are also the ones who do it because the idea of the People’s Militia was swept aside in an age where Big Government has the monopoly on force and protects us all. The idea of regular people coming together and forming an armed militia (eg to resist tyranny) is far more anarchist and dangerous to governments, than disconnected lone nuts with guns.