Well, interesting that you say the "individual rights approach" to the 2nd Amend is a "made up right". Just so happens to be explicit in so many aspects of the rule of law in colonial America.

The creative "collective rights" theory, useful for advancing the policy goals of its advocates, runs contrary to the text of the Constitution, to the debates and original understanding of the Framers, to Supreme Court precedent, and to the widespread understanding of state courts and legislatures for the first 150 years of our nation's history. At the time of the founding, the "militia" was understood to consist of all able-bodied males armed with their own weapons; indeed, the Militia Act of 1792 not only permitted individual gun ownership, it required every man to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock . . . or with a good rifle." This Act is being mentioned in addition to the numerous evidence that I point out of colonial America’s various requirements that individuals bear arms. Funny how you could possibly call it a “made up right” after being informed of all this evidence. BE OBJECTIVE and don’t confuse regulating arms and the argument over individual rights vs. collective rights interpretation of the 2nd A. They are two different questions. All STATES support restrictions and regulations on arms. For example, convicted felons are not allowed to own guns.

No state in the union has a prohibition as draconian. Indeed, the constitutions of 44 states, like the federal Constitution, explicitly protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the legislatures of all 50 states are united in their rejection of bans on private handgun ownership. Forty-five states go even further, allowing private citizens to carry concealed handguns for self-defense.