[ 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 ]

I think at the time... it was hard for the framers to separate the two.

Think of the historical context... everyone owned a gun for hunting and they had just come off the most amazing mobilization of a private militia.

I believe they meant both were important (a militia and the right to individaully bear arms), but just assumed the two would normally go hand-and-hand.