Ive been looking into federal firearms laws and caselaw and have determined the following.

In US vs Miller the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment did not protect the right to posess a sawed off shotgun because the sawed off shotgun was not a military style weapon. This ruling obviously means that the 2nd amendment protects the right to posess military style arms. But whose rights does the 2nd amendment protect?  the individual right to own guns or the states right to have a militia.

in Perpich vs DOD the Supreme court ruled that the National guard was not the states militia but an integral part of the US military. so who is the states militia?

Federal law 10 usc 311-b.2   the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

In US vs Emerson the 5th circuit court ruled that the 2nd amendment clearly protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

So, if we (individuals, see US vs Emerson) have a constitutional right to bear Military style arms (see US vs Miller)wouldnt that indicate that the gun control act of 1968, the 1994 assault weapons ban, the brady bill and hundreds of other federal and state laws be considered unconstitutional?

To answer your last question in a nutshell, yes.

In one word; absolutely.

If what they wrote is what they meant, it would nullify the 1934 NFA act, as well.  It said we couldn't have Machineguns and Short Barreled shotguns without jumping thru hoops, and paying at outragious tax (outragious at the time, anyway).