I too watched CSPAN today and listened to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. I agree that the argument hardly even touched upon the idea of the 2A standing for a collective right.
It seemed most of the Justices (particularly Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Scalia) already assumed that the 2A assures an individual right. Judging by their questions, I would say that it seems like Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg will likely try to curtail the individual right through great deference to a jurisdiction's legislative body. Whereas, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will probably find that the individual right conferred is broad, resulting in very little deference given to legislative bodies that want to regulate such a right through gun control measures. In other words, don't be surprised if, when their opinion is rendered in June, it is a close 5-4 decision, in favor of a broad individual right to bear arms.
I was quite surprised by how much ground the D.C. attorney (Dellinger) gave up, by stating that they weren't really arguing the 2A doesn't confer an individual right, rather D.C. was arguing that courts should give great deference to legislative measures to regulate guns. This great deference would be established by courts reviewing challenged gun control laws using what is called "rational basis review", which more often than not results in such laws being upheld. In contrast, Heller's attorney (Gura) was arguing that the right was broad, so any standard of review applied to challenged gun control laws would have to be similar to "strict scrutiny", which more often than not results in such laws being struck down by courts. Chief Justice Roberts seemed to prefer not to define any standard of review for gun control laws, and instead, he thought that perhaps the court could just define specifically the right outlined in the 2A.
One interesting aspect of the argument today was the court's focus on the way the preamble of the 2A informs what Justice Kennedy calls the "operative clause", being "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". By calling this the "operative clause", Kennedy clearly indicated his predisposition to find an individual right. More interestingly, the court focused on how private individual gun ownership is important in order to have effective military and police forces. In other words, if private individuals can own, use and develop skill with firearms, then some of those same individuals can eventually become more effective military or police officers.
The funniest part of the oral argument came when the D.C. attorney tried to argue that the D.C. gun ban provided for self defense use of a firearm, even though the ban completely banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns to be disassembled or unloaded.and disabled with a gun lock. Scalia immediately criticized the ridiculousness of such an argument by pointing out that when a burglar begins breaking into your home, all you have to do is turn on your nightstand lamp, put on your glasses, unlock the gunlock, load your gun and then you are ready to defend yourself. Scalia's point is clear. The D.C. gun ban doesn't truly allow you to protect yourself because you have to either unlock or assemble and then load your gun to use it to protect yourself and your home. This point by Scalia got an audible laugh from the crowd.