NO gun confiscation

[MMMMMM]

[ 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 ]

Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale; the rationale offered being perhaps only the most important or obvious amongst several existent rationales? Why do you presume that the rationale offered is the only rationale they had, or that naming one rationale compels them to name all rationales?

Another matter: even if your point is granted at face value for the sake of argument, it would then be incumbent on you (or upon the courts, heh;-) to show that a militia IS NO LONGER NECESSARY for the security of a free state--and I don't believe that can be shown. Hence the right to keep and bear shall *still* not be infringed because the original rationale has not been demonstrably obviated.