So you disagree with the Heller historical analysis (which overthrew nothing) and yet cling to a misread of Section III?

Note that the "longstanding restrictions" noted were particularized time, place, and manner restrictions (most explicitly racially based) on -use- of a weapon, often by clearly defined legal subsets (and often not "long-standing," as in the case of, say, felons in general, which dates only to 1968), not general bans on a particular class of firearm (clearly covered in Section IV). As to "dangerous and unusual," the full historical references are primarily to carriage, usually modified with intent to terrify, not mere possession nor even definition.  

While I agree many people who cite it haven't read Heller, equally bad are people who merely read it (or cut and paste what others have published) solely to pull out what they -think- supports their pet position, but who don't bother to look further.