I think RebYidd has a good question- if the emphasis is on “bear”, what you can carry, and not on “arms”, then originally the second amendment would have meant a rifle or sword and not a cannon. Nowadays, a literal interpretation could mean a pistol, machine gun, grenade, hand held SAM, etc. But there are gun laws that limit what can be owned, whether it can be concealed, who can own it, what sort of training you need etc. In other words, the constitutional right to bear arms has been limited/interpreted to adjust to a new reality. I guess the NRA knows which battles to pick.
It’s really not all that different from freedom of speech or assembly- these too are limited, e.g. for safety reasons, or if it is done intentionally to harm someone else (libel).
In other words, one individual’s rights are always looked at in balance with the rights of other individuals or the public as a whole.