There's no such thing as a "collective right". Every other right guaranteed in the Constitution applies to an individual.

Also, "assault weapon" is a term that means whatever the gun grabbers want it to mean today.

The "well regulated militia" of the 2A is a prefatory clause. "... The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people. Any attempt to limit this civil right to a militia is an argument from ignorance.

This is VERY well established, both in law, in judicial review, and in debate. It's an argument that has died, like "violent video games". And yet, people earnestly continue to make it...

This. I know many gun owners personally and almost none of them object to regulation, similar to the level we have for operating a motor vehicle. Things like waiting periods, background checks, denying weapons to violent criminals, mandatory training and gun registries are common sense to most everyone - including gun owners. But the NRA is driving an extremist interpretation of the 2nd amendment that leads a small but very vocal subset of the population to take gun ownership as gospel (literally in some cases) without bothering to ever read the actual text of the Bill of Rights.

Well-regulated meant well equiped when the constitution was signed. That's where "regulars" comes from in military usage. This was addressed in heller by a liberal majority supreme court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...

That's completely false. The right of the people to bear arms is not dependent on them being in a militia.