Jim Macklin wrote:
You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
1789. That really muddies up the water.

Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


Fuzzy is fuzzy and that is fuzzy. Plus, you have to wade through all
the background material in an attempt to determine "legislative intent."
It will forever be challenged by the meaning of militia.

Not so with the 91.113 clause previously cited in this thread.