That is a crackpot theory that has never been taken seriously.There are two significant competing interpretations of the Second Amendment. The first is that it provides a collective right to states, not individuals, to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.
I wouldn't call it a significant competing interpretation.
America could have had a standing army from the start if we wanted to. Relying on the militia was a conscious choice.In the 18th century, at the time of ratification, American states did not have standing armies, so when a military force was needed the state would call up the militia, which would be able-bodied local men bringing their weapons to an assembly point. Without individual ownership of a firearm, there could be no militia.