This is what I wanted to see. This is awesome.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
That's not what the militia means. The "militia" INCLUDED privateers, such that a member of the seaborne militia might own a fully gunned Man of War. That is, the second includes the right to own ALL armament.
But now, here is Heller. Happy pop-gunning.