However, if you read the rest of the oral arguments and also go look at many of the works/authors/statements they refer to you’ll find that the framers were NOT referring to a well organized militia.

Rather they were referring to the public needs to be armed in the case that a militia needs to be formed (whose members provide their own arms) to counter a tyrannical government.

That the rest were talking about collective right to self defense in having weapons as a right.

from the transscript:

JUSTICE STEVENS: How do you explain the
fact that you include self-defense, but only two States,
Pennsylvania and Vermont, did refer to self-defense as a
permissible justification and all of the others referred
to common defense or defense of the State, and in the
Articles of Confederation and the Constitution itself
there is no reference to self-defense?

JUSTICE STEVENS: Just the text of the State
constitutional provisions, two of them refer to
self-defense. The rest refer only to common defense; is
that not correct?

Maybe the framers were talking only about the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a well organized militia?