I understand that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted in both ways you mentioned Z and that such an interpretation is typically used to support whatever agenda one purports to side with in how people individually view it.

Idealogically we were granted the right to defend ourselves against aggressors by allowing the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, though the absolute distinction as to whom such an aggressor might be was never specifically outlined within the constitution.

What I was taught in school was that such a right was granted for defense against foreign as well as domestic aggressions, meaning we had the right to defend both our country against foreign powers on our soil and against our own government should it ever go afoul of its intended purpose(s) and threaten the citizenry.

In my view, and it's just mine, a citizenry deprived of its ability to posess firearms stands naked and helpless against either type of foe and can easily find themselves prey to either just as well