If I hear this one more time I'm going to smack someone

How many times have we heard the media state that U.S. v. Miller (1939) set legal precedent allowing gun control? Or that Miller supports a "collective rights" interpretation? A basic google search will give you the SCOTUS holding in Miller. As an anti, you've got a terrible argument when you base your claims on a ruling that's not supportive in any way.

Miller made no ruling about whether the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, and it certainly didn't say anything about it being a "collective right." What the Court did say was that Miller's weapon, a sawed-off shotgun, was not an "arm" under the 2nd Amendment. They didn't go any further because Miller was dead by the time the case came up. Sure, they were wrong that a sawed-off shotgun had no militia purpose, but there was no one to argue the point and inform them otherwise.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. "

In fact, Miller actually supports an individual rights interpretation quite clearly. How can it be a collective right of state militias when "Men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

"the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "