Historically, "bearing arms" had a specific meaning, in the military context. It was not synonymous with merely "carrying."
The way I read the 2nd Amendment, from a historical point of view, was that the militia (meaning just about everyone) had the right to keep their guns (meaning arms suitable for military purposes) at home, and then to take them out of the home when called for a militia muster.
Note that in 1791, nobody disputed the right of individual self-defense, the right to own ordinary civilian weapons, etc. These were just there, in the background, were non-controversial, and would not have been the subject of a constitutional provision. No, the Founders were thinking about the Lexington/Concord incident, when the British tried to seize the colonists' militia arms stockpile.
Now, I realize that the whole argument about the meaning of the 2nd is quite different from what it would have been in 1791. There's a whole overlay of 200+ years of history. But then let's not talk about the concept of "originalism." Whatever it does, the Supreme Court is "legislating from the bench."