IN NASHUA on Friday, Sen. Barack Obama talked about the 2nd Amendment as if it existed only to guarantee the right to hunt wild game.

"I don't hunt myself, but I respect hunters and sportsmen," he said. "But I don't know of any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer, and if you do, you shouldn't be hunting."

You also don't shoot deer with a handgun, but what has that to do with the 2nd Amendment? Absolutely nothing.

In Iowa this past weekend, Obama said, "I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family. It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic."

At least he claims to believe that homeowners should be able to protect themselves, though he did not say it was a right.

Obama is not alone in his misconstruing of the 2nd Amendment as primarily protecting hunters.

John Edwards said last weekend, "I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters' rights to be protected. It's part of my culture because of the way I grew up. But I don't think you need an AK-47 to hunt. . . There's some weapons that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters."

The 2nd Amendment reads: "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."

Funny, it doesn't mention hunting at all. It does, however, mention "the security of a free state." Interesting that these candidates, and others like them, never seem to mention that part.