I disagree completely. The wording of the decision makes it quite clear that "every male physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" was expected to appear carrying his own arms. That very clearly included Miller. The "collective right" was invented as a smokescreen by lower courts to hide the facts of the ruling, but the ruling is not badly worded. I believe that later courts wanted to support the "collective rights" interpretation but there was no way to rule on a relevant case without revealing the lies of the lower court.
What was badly decided by the Miller court, was that the Second Amendment includes some implied limitation based on the Militia clause.
A well-educated electorate being necessary to the continuance of a free country, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
The sentence above does NOT suggest that there is only one reason for the right, and it does not suggest that the government gets to decide which books are protected and which aren't, and it does not suggest that only voters are protected. The Supreme Court invented a "use" test but all they really needed was a definition of "arms" and "people".
You are correct but if you read the Miller case, the wording suggests that the basis of the individual right to the 2nd Amendment is based on "weapons of the type of military service." This leaves out quite a large group of firearms types but ironically includes the guns that Congress in it's infinite lack of wisdom decided to ban in 1986. Go figure.
Mike