And even if they didn't, As Time Marches On the Constitution has to be "translated" to accommodate modern times.

Probably the same reason the 1st amendment sees fit to say more than 'you can say what ever you want'. They felt the need to add to it that it includes the press and the right to worship what ever god you believe in, etc. The militia is made up of the civilian citizens, not the Army. lt's really not that hard to understand if you think about it.

As much as I am a strong supporter of strict gun control, I do not agree with your interpretation of the clause. I do not see anything that would've suggested a limitation.However, had the gift of foresight, they, like any civil society would have addressed with more specificity. As it is written, I see huge holes and is open to wide interpretation.

The point also needs to be made that the population, way of life, types of weapons & ammo, & many other things have changed. The 2nd Amendment was itself an "amendment". The Constitution was meant to be a living thing. I am not for the repeal of it, but we do need to come to a "modern" consensus on what we want from it & what it should mean for us, as a society in today's world. If we were to be strict constructionists we would still have only land-owning, white males voting. Now, there are probably some that would love to go back there, but that ship has long sailed! Let's live as best & as safely as we can in today's society!

To me, there is no arguing this point. You can't get anymore straight foreword than that. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, I don't see anyway that you can argue adding anything to that, doesn't mean they had some type of limitations in mind.