Based on other (non-second-amendment) cases, I would not have expected the USSC in Miller to limit the weapon to an association with a militia arm. Lower courts since Miller have explicitly done so, which is the reason that I'm re-thinking my interpretation of the level and extent of our second amendment protection.
"Now I ask you recognize that the one of the immunities of citizens of the United States is an immunity from the infringement of their right to keep and bear arms."
Sorry. I don't see how. An immunity of citizens of the United States arises out of the nature and essential character of the national government. That ain't a RKBA. The national government does not extend this right (and you don't want them to) -- this is a fundamrntal right, protected by the states that is not to be infringed by the federal government.
Please explain, in light of the individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected from infringement by the federal government by the Second Amendment, how this protection differs from the protection provided for freedom of speech in the First Amendment.
Please explain how the First Amendment has been "incorporated" by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and yet you deny that the Second Amendment is incorporated as well.
What is the distinction which you see which justifies the asymmetry in legal treatment?
Or to put your position more candidly-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that States may infringe.