That it applies to individuals is no "Happy accident."
What can be more "clearly worded" than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? ? ? ?
The term "the people" appears in other amendments, and in a legal document, when a word or phrase obtains a specific definition, that same definition applies everywhere the phrase is used.
I agree in terms of interpretation of the actual Constitution 100%. I also believe that RKBA is a natural and inherent right and simply enumerated by the Constitution. We'd still have it if there was no 2A at all.
However, I agree with the idea it was ambiguity to appease the Anti-Federalists, and Federalists on state militias. Individual people for the Federalists, and the well regulated Militia (regulated in the sense of having arms, and being functional/credible) to appease the states/Anti-Federalists.
I just believe a complete 180 from the anti-gunners, that the RKBA was
such a given to the Framers that they might not have mentioned it at all. Considering what they'd just been through with the Revolutionary War, I'm not certain they had the frame of reference to consider that the fed.gov or state.gov would someday try to restrict the individual RKBA.
To them saying the individual citizen couldn't have arms was like saying he couldn't drink or breathe. So the states-rights (I say states rights for the sake of common usage, states don't have rights, they have powers, people have rights...) interpretation of the 2A makes sense to me.
Also keep in mind that while the entire BOR lists individual rights, with the exception of the 10th, which specifically lists the "states and the people", was still an exercise in mollifying the Anti-Federalists and coaxing the states to ratify the Constitution. The whole BOR owes it's existence to the states that largely weren't clamoring/complaining about the enumeration of individual rights in the ratification process, they were concerned about the states powers against, and in balance with the federal government.
I know anything that seems to dilute the individual rights interpretation of the 2A makes people edgy, it's understandable, however, an examination of the motives behind it's enactment can be separated from what it actually says.
And again, because the BOR merely enumerates rights, the individual RKBA exists whether or not it's listed.