[absalom01]

The syntax seems awkward, but it has always seemed to me that the militia clause is there to emphacize that the arms protected by the 2nd are militarily significant arms. Not hunting, not sporting purposes, or any of the modern falderal we've come to accept.

[ctdonath2]

Even militarily insignificant arms can be used for national defense, being better than nothing.

[Fresh Wind]

The syntax seems awkward, but it has always seemed to me that the militia clause is there to emphacize that the arms protected by the 2nd are militarily significant arms. Not hunting, not sporting purposes, or any of the modern falderal we've come to accept.

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.