No it doesn't. It gives the militia as one reason for the right to bear arms. Just because it only mentions one reason doesn't mean that reason is unnecessary. Just because there are other possible reasons doesn't make the first half unnecessary. They could have left it out of the amendment if they really wanted to and the right would still exist but they chose to include it as one of the reasons, probably because they felt it a significant reason. Regardless, leave it in or take it out, the 2nd amendment does not limit firearm ownership solely for the purpose of a militia. To suggest that the mention of the militia means firearms are only for militia use is plainly a wrong and tortured reading of the english language.