The Constitution also does not tie arms-related rights to the militia. An appreciation for the finer workings of English grammar is in order here, but he's some help from a kind professor at UCLA:
The Commonplace Second Amendment
And the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/op...6freedman.html
And for some help with the finer points:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Bottom line: the first part of the Amendment, from a linguistic and grammatical standpoint, is meaningless. The second part, that bit that comes after the comma, is the only bit that matters. This is part of why it helps to study not only the historical, but also the cultural, legal, and linguistic contexts and commentaries in question.