I don't think so.
The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it is not the right of the militia which is to be protected. It is the proper functioning of the militia which is the one stated reason for the protection of the Second Amendment, but it is "the right of the people" that is protected.
The Miller Court was very much mistaken in narrowing "the right of the people" in the way that they did. If the Founders had meant what the Miller Court decided, they would only have protected SOME arms at SOME times. Similar statements in state constitutions which were written at the time of our nation's founding make clear that the pre-existing right included defense of self, family, community, and state.
Whatever the Supreme Court may decide about "militias" is irrelevant to proper understanding of the Second Amendment.
Another way of looking at the problem is to recognize that the Second Amendment, in so far as it protects the existence of a well-regulated Miliitia, is not sufficient to guarantee the existence of such a Militia.
There are other community efforts that must be carried out to enable the Militia. Failing to enable the Militia through proper planning and enabling could render the militia itself inefficient. But the protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will have a beneficial effect in reducing the impact of such community neglect.
It is only necessary to recognize that "the right of the people to benefit from a well-regulated Militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not the same thing. Then one can recognize that one of these rights, in its entirety, is protected by the Second Amendment from ANY infringement.
“The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it is not the right of the militia which is to be protected. It is the proper functioning of the militia which is the one stated reason for the protection of the Second Amendment, but it is “the right of the people” that is protected.”
“I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” George Mason.
If the militia consists of the whole people, then there is no distinction or difference between the people and the militia.
“Founders had meant what the Miller Court decided, they would only have protected SOME arms at SOME times.”
In Miller, USSC said that if you can establish a linkage between the milita and the firearm then the firearm is protected. If the militia and the people are the same, then all firearms are protected since one cannot distinguish between the militia and the people.
“Then one can recognize that one of these rights, in its entirety, is protected by the Second Amendment from ANY infringement.”
Depends upon what you mean by ‘ANY infringement’. Certain rules and regulations should and will remain. I don’t believe the 2nd amendment protects the ‘right’ to have heavy machine gun target practice in residential neighborhoods, do you?