The central right identified in the Heller decision is

[dairydog91]

24. Cite cases, please.

dairydog: Heller did not reverse 200 years of history. >>>> Yes it did.
Cite a case, please. Find a case, from 1812 or earlier, in which a Court states that the right to keep and bear arms is communal, not individual. Any court case will do (Federal preferred), but I want to see the text. Higher level courts would be preferable.

Also, wiki words this a bit differently than yours, & doesn't specifically call it a {2ndA} 'constitutional right' to keep & carry arms wherever they went. Have you a reputable link?
The majority listed a number of rights that African-Americans would acquire should they have American citizenship:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." 60 U.S. 393, 417

Now, either the majority pulled these rights of American citizens out of its ass, so to speak, or it looked to the text of the Constitution to figure out what rights it protected. The right to enter other states without obstructions is probably based on Article 4 limitations on state power (Or maybe the Dormant Commerce Clause), while the right to "liberty of speech" seems to be sourced in the First Amendment and the only textual support for a right to "keep and carry arms" can be found in the Second Amendment. This is ultimately analysis of Court dicta, but I think your argument or implied argument that these rights, because the Court did not directly cite them to specific protections, were simply court creations is completely flawed. It seems far more likely that the Court cherry picked examples of Constitutional rights of American citizenship, which it considered especially terrifying should they protect African Americans, in order to buttress its central argument that the Founders did not intend to grant US citizenship to them.

Let me add another quote from the 1939 supreme court miller ruling...
Except I acknowledged (or at least thought I did) that the Miller case left an open door for interpretation, and seemed to show an intersection of individual right and community purpose. As the sections I cited previously seemed to hint, the RKBA could reasonably be interpreted to mean that it only protects an individual right to the extent that it protects possession of weapons that would have utility for militia use in the event of a call-up. Your added excerpt doesn't seem to detract from this argument. Hence, sawed-off shotguns, being militarily-useless guns normally used only for criminal purposes, are not protected.

Now, this ruling was UNANIMOUS, 9 - 0, and it contained the above two passages, affirmed by all 9 justices in 1939. Don't you think, if they had indeed thought it an individual RKBA disconnected from militia service (as scalia ruled) at least ONE of the nine justices would'nt've chirped up 'whoa, fellow justices, look how we've worded our rulings, people in future generations are gonna think we intended a militia based Right to Keep & Bear Arms'.
Except that I didn't argue that the individual RKBA was disconnected from militia service, but rather that Miller could reasonably be interpreted to support an individual right which only extended to the degree that it protected and individual right to possess specific weapons which would have a militia purpose in the event of a callup. Did the Justices think this through to the extent you're implying they did? Probably not; 2nd Amendment jurisprudence wasn't exactly a hot field at the time.

Have you a reputable link?
I am purely citing from the text of court cases. I can provide a specific textual reference, if you prefer, for any text I quote.