Many hunters support the Second Amendment, which does not support them in return. “Arms” has not been interpreted as referring to the types of weapons used for hunting.
Since hunters don’t have hunting as a constitutional right, should they be given that?
Even in states with the strictest gun control laws hunters get a preference. This is often abused unless the the law is specific. For instance a man can claim he needs an AR with an extended magazine for deer hunting. The 270 Winchester model 44 is a bolt action that is one of the most popular large game weapons among subsistence hunters in my area. 280 Remington bolt actions are another affordable long rifle choice for hunters. One does not need an AR with an extended magazine to shoot deer.
I’m not sure why hunting should be a constitutional right. But assuming it should perhaps something along the lines of:
Unregulated Hunting being a fun way to pass time, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This way the amendment won’t be about a “militia” and wont call for gun “regulation”
since of course you are correct, the the second amendment as written, (and interpreted until Heller in 2008) does NOT support hunters
The Noda b’Yehuda points out that the only hunters mentioned in Tanach are Nimrod and Eisav. Baring arms is, of course, immodest. Anyway, many hunters give up when they see a road sign “Bear Left”.
The right to hunt is covered by the ninth amendment. The second amendment refers only to self defense and defense of the community. In 1938, SCOTUS in U.S. v Miller ruled that only weapons suitable for military formations are covered by the second amendment.