What came up made me both laugh and snort furiously at my computer.
I'll let you read them and make your own assumptions, but here's my opinion on the matter.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't people understand? It wasn't meant for only militias, it wasn't meant for only hunters, and it is NOT an outdated, archaic clause in an otherwise brilliant piece of work.