I started reading the desent portion of the Miller decision and was struck by the lack of logic and reason displayed in just the first few paragraphs...

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question."

First, the anti-gun proponents have always argued that the second amendment was a collective right.

Second, if Justice Stevens concedes that the 2nd amendment is an individual right then I'd ask what value is that individual right if it can only be exercised within the confines of being part of a STATE militia?

Third, it is nonsensical to even suggest that anyone has a "right" to commit a crime.

He goes on to say...

"The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,”

Does Justice Stephens really believe that the citizens of Pennsylvania and the other states that included a self-defense justification for bearing arms in their Constitution willing to give up that right? May he should consider that bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense understood as a given in post Revolutionary War America.