Joshua Feinzig and Joshua Zoffer, Yale University law students (or professors?), have offered an analysis in the Atlantic “A constitutional case for gun control: History and textual analysis aren’t the only factors that matter. Our lives do, too”, link.
All of this follows from a new case before SCOTUS, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v the City of New York, regarding the prohibition of moving some personally owned firearms to new locations controlled by the owner.
The law students discuss an amicus brief by March for our Lives.
The argument maintains that the Second Amendment would consider that a collective herd self-defense would include reasonable regulation, background checks, prohibition of military assault weapons, and maybe training and licensure of gun owners. The concept is similar to herd immunity in public health.
I think it is also possible to tie the idea of training and licensure to the original “militia” language – that one would be able to protect others.
But the argument emphasizes that it makes little sense in an individual rights sense to expect teachers to be able to protect themselves and students as if they were soldiers.
Of course, some people will make another neighborbood herd argument, that a neighborhood is safer if some competent citizens are armed and are competent to use them and are personally somewhat autarkic.