The arguments presented before the SCOTUS were afraid to state the rather obvious:
The people of the United States of America can keep and bear arms, and the government is not allowed to infringe upon that basic right. No government regulations concerning arms is allowed.
This is a subject that the government is not allowed to be involved with in any way. The government is specifically forbidden to address this subject!
Now "Miller" defined arms as those which are used by the military. It may be rather twisted, but I can accept that legal argument.
I personally own many arms which were actually used in combat.
From my swords to rifles, there is no way that they could not be classified as militia related arms, since each and every one of them were used by the militia in actual combat.
Why is such simple language so darn difficult to understand?
Given what special forces worldwide have used since 1939, anything from a sharp stick to a nuke would seem to be protected as useful to the militia. OK, maybe a nuke is going too far - but I cannot buy into any restriction any weapon that can be carried by a single average soldier.