Yes, several states prior to Heller held that gun rights were an individual right. But Heller was the first to interpret it at the federal level. Prior to Heller, the only other major supreme court case to be decided was US v. Miller (1939). It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller.
I noticed that Dana Loesch cited George Mason as disagreeing with the militia factor. George Mason did not sign onto the constitution and quit the negotiation because of his disagreement.
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." --
US v. Miller
What is there in the Miller decision that you think Scalia gave a tortured reinterpretation of in Heller? As far as I can see, the two decisions are 100% consistent with each other. And it's not just me. The SCOTUS decision
affirmed the earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- i.e., the appellate court had also thought the DC city council ordinance was unconstitutional.
Entirely apart from the fact that Dick Heller was clearly a member of the militia as Miller understood the term, your statement that Miller held that the 2nd amendment only applied to members of the state militia appears to be incorrect. (I'm guessing you probably haven't read the Miller decision and have been relying on third party representations of it.) I can't see anything in Miller addressing
whom it applies to. Miller says
what it applies to. "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." It says the constitutional right applies
to types of weapons in common use and suitable for a militia. So, for example, there's nothing in Miller to imply that the government can ban someone from having a rifle because she's a woman, even though Miller defines her to not be part of the militia.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Miller is only about classifying weapons; the ruling simply didn't address whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right. This is normal -- when the SCOTUS can dispose of a case on narrow grounds instead of broad grounds, it usually does so.
As far as Heller and Scalia are concerned, what reason is there to think any of the gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller would have gone down differently post-Heller? There's nothing anti-gun-regulation in the Heller decision. The SCOTUS didn't tell DC that Mr. Heller didn't need a permit; it told them to either give him a permit or to come up with a better reason than "Nobody gets a permit". The sky doesn't fall because it's an individual right. An individual having a right to a pistol doesn't mean the government can't ban AR-15s. There's an awful lot of hand-wringing going on about Heller, and as far as I can see, it's completely overblown. Heller knocks down only the most extreme of gun control measures.