Gun Control & RKBA

OP: the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise

sarisataka: A interesting article with an irredeemable flaw.. The premise they state is never proven in the article.

The article's premise does not need be proven within the article, it needs be disproven by you if you contend the supreme court did rule for an individual rkba. Otherwise their premise is valid.
The article cannot 'prove' what it contends in a page on a magazine - it would need post relevance from the entire previous 5 supreme court cases touching on the 2nd amendment, which would take a short book.
However, since you are contending an 'irredeemable flaw' in the article, it's incumbent upon you to excerpt a sentence, a paragraph, or a link to somewhere that the supreme court in any of those 5 previous 2ndA cases, actually does refer to 2ndA as an individual right.

sarisataka: The second point they are using is the statement that previously SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd is not an individual right. This they failed to support with an appropriate citation.

Can you cite exactly where they said this, since what you posted does not back you up. They simply said the supreme court 'had ruled otherwise', which is not the same as saying it ruled no individual right. You are apparently twisting words & meanings. They ruled 'otherwise' in miller by referring to sawed off shotguns disallowed to jack miller.

sarisatake: However what they failed to mention is that the court ruled the right is limited to militia service in any of those cases. If such a statement was not included in the ruling then the question remained unanswered.

The supreme court did not 'rule' on the individual - militia dichotomy since the court ruled on the validity of the plaintiffs or defendants in the cases, Jack Miller the scofflaw, Presser the unorganized militia leader, the cruikshank kids, & the other two cases which were largely irrelevant.
The supreme court did proffer these revealing contentions in the 1939 unanimous Miller case:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

1939 miller cont'd, my edits: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use {by jack miller} of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a {existing} well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right {of jack miller} to keep and bear such an instrument

Tack on an amicus brief citing adams, by the US justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

The 1939 supreme court miller decision & the dept of justice in it's amicus brief were both on the same page in many of the opinions they expressed, demonstrating that the opinions expressed above were essentially held by both.