No, that is NOT what it says. It says that for a weapon
-- not the person, but the weapon
-- to be within the scope of the right protected by the Amendment, it (the weapon
) must bear a reasonable relationship for use in a militia.
The Court did not discuss Miller's membership in a militia. If the ruling turned on that, they simply would have dismissed for lack of standing on Miller's part, because he as an individual would have had no claim to the Amendment's protection.
Instead, they remanded back to the lower court for determination as to whether or not the sawed-off shotgun in question is such a weapon reasonably related to militia use.
turns on the type of weapon
, not the individual or collective character of the right. Saying that it says the right is a collective right is simply pulling something out of thin air.
Thus, it is not "reasoning"; it is simply lying.