Which interpretation of 2A do you have in mind? Obviously the wording is ambiguous and open to varying interpretations or we wouldn't have so many widely varying yet more or less well supported interpretations, yes?
I support the intention of those who created 2A: that the Crown abuses of colonial times not be committed by the government of the USA. What were these abuses?
Crown officers, even low ranking officers, had the authority to seize weapons and not compensate the owners. Many low ranking officials were able to enrich themselves via this legalized thievery.
Villages and town were left vulnerable to attack by outlaws, Indians, pirates when all weapons were seized. Sometimes the Crown official who did the seizure SOLD that information to outlaws, Indians, pirates enriching themselves above and beyond what they realized from the sale of the seized weapons. And some, along with their underlings, would costume themselves as outlaws, Indians, pirates and attack the village themselves, murdering, raping, burning, looting, and thus enrich themselves.
The idea that the creation of A2 was about "defending ourselves from our own government" is simply incorrect. This idea wasn't heard until well into the 19th Century, long after A2 was created and ratified. It's a philosophical argument whether or not Americans have the right to take up arms against their own government, yes, but that argument had no role in the creation of A2.
IMHPO, our founders would not be so chowderheaded as to imagine that any government could be stable without the just authority to compel the unwilling to conform to those laws established by We The People of The United States.