It absolutely does indicate/say common weapons or readily available weapons or widely accepted weapons.
The type of legal weapons that they actually brought from their homes to militia duty....is the very definition of common weapons/readily available weapons/widely accepted weapons.
You want to ignore the entire rest of the statement and focus on whether individuals could have conceivably had a legal right to own those at the time? Fine...I'll quote you more Scalia where he explicitly says the 2nd Amendment right is specifically only applicable to common weapons/readily available weapons/widely accepted weapons at the time of the drafting.
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.
Miller said, as we have explained, that
the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
We think that
Miller’s
“ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
State v.
Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980)
Heck he even comments and acknowledges that DC v. Heller would not serve to bar bans on M-16s and the like and explains why...
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—
M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the
Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.
But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
1
