First off, I am a hunter and own four hunting guns but it has always seemed to me as I read the Second Amendment that the right to bear arms for hunting or self defense has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. That right is an entirely separate issue and requires separate legislation.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a nation, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon." The amendment is clearly about a well-regulated militia, not about gun ownership for the purpose of hunting or self defense.
It has always been beyond me how the NRA and the courts have paid no attention to the first part of the amendment and have focused instead on the second part of the amendment. The amendment says nothing about hunting or self defense. Those uses of firearms clearly call for separate legislation.
If you think the Second Amendment applies to your right to gun ownership then I ask again, "What militia do you belong to?"
I am not opposed to hunting or self-defense but that is a separate issue and does not apply to a well-regulated militia. Our militia no longer is civilians as in Revolutionary times but is now that responsibility of our armed forces who have the clear right to bear arms.
Gun ownership for the purpose of hunting and self defense is a separate issue demanding separate legislation which can be more easily controlled and regulated.