I don't think there was any intention to restrict this amendment to military significant arms. True, there is no mention of hunting. Hunting, in those days, was a necessary and routine part of living, not a recreational activity. It may not have been obvious to anyone living the the 18th century that it would ever be different. The mention of the militia is there to emphasize one particular reason for gun ownership (which they considered particularly important), BUT NOT TO EXCLUDE ANY OTHERS, as they made abundantly clear in the second clause.
yup, mea culpa. I was already called on that (unintended) meaning of my post.
Historically, “arms” (originally bladed weapons and later firearms) were restricted, especially on the European continent to the elite. In the historic context, the 2nd amendment was a radically inclusive statement: making sure that the government recognized that the new Republic would not tolerate such divisions among its citizens.
But, the amendment clearly meant to include (though not limit to) arms in common use by the militia at the time (ie, “military arms”). As an aside, but along these lines, it has seemed to me for the past decade or so that one of the greatest outrages against the US constitution is California’s ban on civilian ownership of the standard infantry rifle of our time: the derivatives of the Armalite AR series.
Post in haste, repent at leisure, I guess.