+89 (second amendment interpretation 64)

continuing from the preceding post

Moreover, that width isolation for a purpose (selecting "security of a free state" from among others) to have a right to keep and bear Arms was also accompanied by depth isolation for that purpose through the mentioning of a militia.

I questioned, in POST +81, why the Amendment was not stated as:

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As much as you may not agree with the executory isolation of the purpose through applying "well regulated" on a militia, talked about in that post, because you take "well regulated" in a less sophisticated way, as much as the mentioning of a militia would be less needed and shows more serving as isolation in expression between the ultimate purpose ("the security of a free state") and the people's right to keep and bear Arms. If the makers of the Amendment were even moderately enthusiastic for other reasons as restrictions on government power (like for example "self-defense right") why did they point out the intermediacy of the militia stage in achieving the purpose of the security of a free state instead of letting it be expressed directly from the status of people having a right to keep and bear Arms? It doesn't take thinking effort to see that people protect the security of their state using their right to keep and bear Arms by fighting together in a militia.