True enough. It's also covered pretty well in the plethora of decisions concluding a collective right.
I was curious, therefore, why the poster concluded that "it is clear as a bell that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the individual to bear arms".
Since you're not that poster, and since you really have nothing to add to the discussion (other than some vague reference to the decision), I think we're done.
A plain reading of the text makes it clear. The contorted reasoning and mis-citing of Miller by lower courts, or citing other cases that have mis-cited Miller as precedent in order to reach a predetermined conclusion don't change that.
The entire "collective right" argument has always been disingenuous, not to mention the racial component of original gun control laws in this country. But your'e a smart guy, so you knew that.