I'm not sure about "a Militia" having rights. They could have written, "the right of the people as members of a Militia to keep and bear ..." but that would have been redundant.
Speaking of "should have written", it they meant an individual right independent of a Militia, they should have written the second amendment as, "The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress nor any state".
Lots of things they should have done, huh?
Oh, I think what they did was quite enough.
The court here is caught on the horns of a delemma,
they can find to keep the assorted restrictive infringments
or they can find for the people. Supporting laws that clearly are in opposition to our constitution and bill of rights will find those laws ignored by the majority of the
populace who will find a way to restore those rights.
One way or another.
Petitioners claim that the Second Amendment is derived from the seventeenth of certain amendments proposed by Virginia, and that Virginia “[s]eparately . . . proposed amending the Militia Clauses directly: ‘11th—That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same.’ ” Pet. Br. 26 (citation omitted). Yet both proposals originated in the same document, the Second Amendment’s precursor among provisions “constituting the bill of rights,” and the militia amendment among what the convention labeled “[t]he other amendments.” David Young, THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT 462 (2d ed. 2001).If guaranteeing the people’s “right to keep and bear arms,” with reference to a “well regulated militia” and “a free state,” were intended to secure the states a right to arm their militias, the Virginia Convention would not have separately proposed an explicit reservation of the states’ militia powers. That the Second Amendment’s direct precursor came to Congress in a “bill of rights,” alongside a state militia power among “other amendments,” strongly suggests the two are not identical.
Indeed, if rejected language is any clue as to the meaning of that which was accepted, perhaps the most telling example was the Framers’ rejection of the following proposed amendment: “That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. . . .” FIRST SENATE JOURNAL 126.
This proposal stated, in unmistakably direct and concise fashion, exactly that meaning which Petitioners would divine in the Second Amendment through tortured linguistics, fanciful explanations, and “hidden history.” And it was rejected by the Framers. “[H]istory does not warrant concluding that it necessarily follows from the pairing of the concepts that a person has a right to bear arms solely in his function as a member of the militia.” Robert Sprecher, The Lost Amendment, 51 AM. BAR ASS’N J. 554, 557 (1965)