That is a flat out lie. There is no such indication whatsoever in the Miller decision.
The Court merely said that no evidence had been presented to show that the firearm in question had any utility as a militia weapon. The clear implication is that had that evidence been shown to the Court Miller's possession of the short barrel shotgun would have been protected by the amendment.
That evidence was abundantly available, but Miller had died before the case was heard and his lawyer didn't show up in court to submit any evidence at all. Any unbiased reader of Miller will come away with the impression that the court would have ruled differently if that evidence had been presented.
Since Miller many lower courts have knowingly, brazenly misinterpreted the decision, and in practically every case those courts used that misinterpretation to deny Americans their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I'd have to read the other comments Rogers made and look at Miller again, before I'd conclude on the remark. It's a mistake though to conclude "militia" is a collective that holds right. It's the individuals that hold the right and they make up militia.
A simple rephrase illustrates the point.
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.
The people retain the right, not the collective "electorate". The people simply make up the electorate.
2nd Amendment does not explicitly state firearms. Just arms. Based on the logic of Miller I suppose swords are not considered generally to have utility militarily and therefore we should have no right to own/bear swords...right? Hands Up!