You should really read Scalia's decision in Heller. Scalia's decision in Heller did not establish the 2nd as an individual right, it carefully explained why it always meant that.
Your belief about what the second amendment means and what it was meant to mean when written is incorrect and thoroughly debunked in that decision.
> Scalia's decision in Heller did not establish the 2nd as an individual right, it carefully explained why it always meant that.
That's what every decision that established a particular interpretation of the Constitution as the official one does, so the “did not establish” part is not only unnecessary, but incorrect.
The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to mean all sorts of things that weren't actually in it. That's establishing new rights based on inferences about what maybe was supposed to be but didn't quite make it into the document.
The 2nd is a very clear piece of writing. There's no ambiguity about it, and Scalia carefully deconstructs all of the BS that other people have written and tried to make it out to be, in explaining how it has always meant exactly what it said.
Your belief about what the second amendment means and what it was meant to mean when written is incorrect and thoroughly debunked in that decision.