Whether the Second Amendment "creates" a right or not is irrelevant to whether there is a right that is protected.
Here is what I believe:
Truth: The right to keep and bear arms is an individual, unalienable right which is a consequence of the right to life.
Truth: The Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, not to a "collective right".
Truth: The individual right to keep and bear arms is referred to in the Dred Scott case as being among the privileges and immunities of a free person, without reference to state of residence.
Truth: The Miller decision remanded the case to lower courts on the sole issue of whether a short-barreled shotgun was useful to a militia and did not challenge Miller's right to possess such a weapon if it did have such usefulness.
Your assessment of these items would be useful since you often seem to quote legal cases to establish law without reference to judicial error.
Anti-gunners are forced to subscribe to different theories to accomplish disarmament and they would be much less successful if they were required to be consistent. Instead, when a judge will buy the ridiculous "collective rights" nonsense, then that is what they use. Otherwise, they find themselves dependent upon the notion that a "right to keep and bear arms" can exist but that states can be free to infringe it.
The Supreme Court cannot support gun control with a decision because any decision they might make would likely invalidate gun laws in half the states of the Union.
Even IF the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, it still only applies to federal law. Silveira v. Lockyer involved state law, and the second amendment does not apply to state law.
I guess I'd better stop citing actual cases to you since all you do is shrug them off as "judicial error". Why do I bother?
From now on, let's just discuss how we "feel" about an issue. Wouldn't that be fun?