Why the change in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence between 19th and 20th centuries?

Whether you hold with the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment or the “collective right” interpretation, one thing seems clear from the history: for virtually all of the 19th century, both judicial decisions and informed commentators held the Second to guarantee an individual right. But then in the 20th century, this was reversed in several circuit court decisions such as Tot v. United States. My question is, how did the 20th century collective right rulings repudiate over a century of previous opinion on the subject? To give just one example, here’s one cite quoted by Wikipedia:

And yet by the time of Tot such opinions were either forgotten, ignored or repudiated. How exactly?

Most those cases were from the southern states and create the precedents.

But it is the same stuff different day…

People will hand over all types of rights due to fear uncertainty and doubt.

Most of the cases you mention above were directly targeted at disarming people of African decent.

(Note I am not taking on either side of this debate, just answering the question)

Note this part “to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security”

There was also the gangland killings in Chicago during the 1920’s … thus the National Firearms Act of 1934 …

Racism. Gun rights were only for upstanding white folk, not for the dangerous and unstable underclass of poor black people who threatened those upstanding white folk’s place in society. That only became a problem later in the 19th and early 20th century, for obvious reasons. Slavery was repealed, and all the sudden white people had to contend with the fact that their hated underclass was due the same rights as them. Judges had to adjust their opinions accordingly.