When I read parts of Miller and discussed it with a co-worker (quite knowledgeable) back in the early 90's, the meaning was not what the anti groups present. The decision was based upon what was believed to be a firearm which would have purpose and valid use as a military arm for militia. The court did not find that a "sawed off" shotgun fit this description. If one were to take the court at its decision, and more importantly the Founders views, then arms which are subject to military use must also be available to citizens for their own use (arms meeting the definition common in the late 1700's). So Miller had nothing to do with the collective concept nor did it have anything to do with gun control.
Now I could be wrong about this, but that was, and I suppose still is, my understanding of this case. The book, "Unintended Consequences" goes into some depth about this case and the surrounding events.