Your interpretation is ludicrous but it's not surprising. 2nd Amendment nutters have to go to great lengths to wish the well regulated militia and the comma away.
"Bear arms" has a specific military connotation, which only makes sense in the context of a militia. People do not "bear arms" for personal use. "People" is a collective noun, meaning the people of the several states have the collective right to keep and bear arms in the form of the citizens' militias, and the citizens' militias should not be disbanded or allowed to become so poorly kept up that they are useless.
The meaning of the amendment is obvious from anyone who has ever bothered to read the debates surrounding the militia and the standing army during the ratification process. The anti-federalists, forces opposed to ratification, were concerned that the new constitution would lead to a permanent standing army and disarm the people's militia. Look at all the proposed amendments regarding this, and virtually all of them have some rant about standing armies being a threat to liberty, which is why they said that a militia is necessary in order to protect the freedom of the state, since standing armies are a threat to that freedom. The 2nd amendment was meant to ensure that the militias would not be dismantled, that the federal government would keep them in good order, provide them adequate training and provisions, etc. That's all that it means. If they wanted a personal right to carry whatever weapons they wanted, they would have made an amendment with that language, like they did in Pennsylvania and Vermont. They did not do so. There is no mention anywhere of concern about personal self-defense.
In order to believe your interpretation, we'd have to assume that some segment of the constitution was intended to have no effect and is mere surplusage with no meaning.