Re: The reports so far with some editorial....
"The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting..."
"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"
You're right, it has nothing to do with hunting. It also has nothing to do with home defence, self-defence and all the other NRA BS. The intent was to not have a strong central military and citizens would use their own weapons if the country was invaded or if the US was overtaken by a tyrant and the local militias could resist a centrally controlled army.
Both use cases date from an era when the average citizen could easily own weaponry that was about equivalent to the best military weaponry. Since clearly you're not going to use 2nd amendment to allow citizens to own tactical nukes, somewhere a line has to be drawn at what weaponry is reasonable for citizenry to hold in a militia scenario*. Also, since right to bear arms stems from "well-regulated militia", limit permission of weapon ownership to registered embers of local militias, and make it truly "well-regulated" in allowed membership, weapons training, central militia storage of certain classes of weapon. All of that would be well within scope of 2nd amendment, but NRA nuts have extended 2nd amendment to mean any American can own and have in their possession, even publically, any type of weapon.
*this might, of course, include automatic weaponry
"hunting dear" Hehe ;)