The Bill of Rights within the United States Constitution applies to all citizens within the borders of the greater United States and their relative states not within the mainland. Essentially guaranteeing rights to all individual citizens. A collective of citizens have the individual rights to bear arms, but if they condone their actions within a collective, I do not believe they are protected by this right.
Yes, the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. The Constitution and its amendments must be interpreted by their plain meaning. That is, when reading the Constitution, words must be given their ordinary meaning. By allowing the government to limit the people's right to bear arms to certain people only, the government can effectively reduce or eliminate the general population's right to bear arms. As onerous as it is, that felons or violent individuals may bear arms, the Constitution as it is plainly interpreted allows for anyone to keep and bear arms.
My learned colleagues in the "yes" column would probably claim to find clarity in the ramblings of the late British entertainer, Stanley Unwin: look him up.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
is indeed an example of plain language, but prefacing that with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," undoubtedly spoils things.
Since things have changed, and well regulated Militias are no longer deemed necessary I would say that there is no reason why this right should not be infringed.