Apparently they don't have access to the Federalist Papers. That can be the only excuse for ignorance at this level.
The Federalist Papers clearly outline that the right is an individual right.
The gist is... Because there is a need for a 'well armed militia', the people (individuals) should have the right to also be armed so any standing military force can't tyrannize them. They go on to say it was important the people be 'as well armed as any standing army of Europe' .
The 2nd isn't 'you have the right IN a militia', it is 'you have a right BECAUSE a militia is is necessary'.
The term "well-regulated militia" meant something specific in the 18th Century. Over time the common usage of every language naturally evolves, which necessitates the reading of older documents with a more discriminating eye.
Anyone who picks up a copy of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales
for the first time will be instantly presented with 14th-Century usages and terminology that requires (the oft-accompanying) translation. It is one's study and comprehension of the translation that makes the text understandable in modern terms.
"Well-regulated" in 18th-Century common parlance did not refer to direction or control by a government entity as it frequently does today, but to control by individuals
in the sense of "regular order": predictability, structural soundness, efficacy, timeliness. The use of "well-regulated" as an adjective modifying the noun "militia" was intended to imply order of form and function - not control by a government entity.
Similarly, the term "militia" was assumed in Colonial America to refer to voluntary
local and regional common defense associations, as necessitated by the physical presence of hostile Indian tribes or (in New England, for a time) French raiders. More broadly speaking, the militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.
In the context of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is properly read to mean that because the security and freedom of one's State depends upon having an effective and trained voluntary fighting force, the right of individuals to keep armaments in their homes and to carry them inside and out of their homes, shall not be infringed by the government.
notes, this interpretation is borne out in the Federalist Papers #29 and #46, as well as in other legal citations and commentaries (available upon request).