One could just as easily break the 2nd Amendment down to "Militia".
4th "unreasonable". 2nd "militia". All: "persons" "citizens" "native born citizens" "rights" "privileges" "powers".
I suggest that the authors of the constitution carefully chose the words they used and had specific meanings for those words.
1) What were those specific meanings in 1789?
2) Which, if any, should be allowed to change in meaning?
I submit that what search & seizure was reasonable in 1789
is not the same as in 2006 due to technology.
Bush might argue what is reasonable is not the same due to 911. I would disagree. As we all know, the terrorist threat existed in the 1st WTC bombing, and in many other incidents that led up to 911. I disagree that it is reasonable to say that "911 changed everything". The only thing it changed was the opportunity of a spineless politician to nuance his positions.