The concept of disarming people because law enforcement can protect them is possibly the most illogical one ever presented with respect to the governing of a free society. To be able to fully police and protect completely would require a police state rather than a free society.
It is not about hunting. It is about self defense and a stand from strength if and when the national government become tyrannical and steps on individual rights. PLEASE read the writings of the founders on these matters. They say what they had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, as far as this writer is aware, never mentions hunting. But the bottom line is that no one on the planet has the legal or moral right to disarm another non-criminal and sane individual. It is done daily around the world but it is immoral and illegal. No law anywhere that allows it is a legal law.
Concerning the free society versus a police state issue, no small arms should be restricted from the individual because the nation's Constitution is designed to keep the free people strong against their government, in case the latter were to become tyrannical. In this writer's opinion this should be taken a step farther with each state's national guard being set up as a strong independent force answerable only to the state government and never to the national one.
With respect tot the Second Amendment's reference to a well formed militia, the Constitution meant for all people to be armed so as to make an armed force like a militia easy to form in time of trouble. That is why Admiral Yamamoto (the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack) who had studied in the U.S prior to World War II said that Japan could not invade America because there would be a man or woman who was armed behind every blade of grass. Notably the 2nd. Amendment is in the Bill of Rights intended for individuals.