[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try again since you still do not understand.

Ok, if the Constitution read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is there a right to a militia?

No, at least not enumerated.

If the Constitution said "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

Is there a right for the people not in the militia to bear arms enumerated in the Constitution? No.

So, the framers put BOTH in, because BOTH were important.