When discussing the adoption of the Constitution, I like to point out that much of the discussion surrounded the desirability of having the first 10 amendments tacked onto it. In broad terms the Federalists claimed it was unnecessary, and that any right spelled out in it would come to be seen as the only rights we retained, while the Anti-Federalists claimed that without it, the government would go on to completely ignore our rights completely.
Clearly both sides were right. We've seen the damage taken even by enumerated rights, and need look no further afield than Britain to see what you get sans First/Second/Fourth/Fifth amendments.
Granted, the Constitution is a masterpiece as written for the most part, but I wish they'd spent a little more time on disambiguation they did.
Granted, we're looking at it all with the clarity of hindsight, but really, would the 2nd amendment not have been both more concise and more clear had they just stopped without the subordinate clause?