Musing.... Let's take a step back on the 2A "debate." Let me ask those defending it so staunchly -why does hunting so often frame the gun control debate? It seems to me that a weapon's appropriateness for hunting is a litmus test used by gun control advocates. The 2nd Amendment is certainly open for debate. But, what interpretation suggests that hunting is a Constitutionally protected right? Perhaps the debate itself is flawed. As we know, the 2A refers to "A Well Regulated Militia..." Instead of focusing directly on guns, maybe it's more appropriate to pass legislation that defines what qualifies as a militia. That's the litmus test. We could then "well regulate" these groups. The regulations would include registration, training, audit and insurance requirements. Groups would be required to perform background checks and screen their members. They would be liable for their members' activity. Guns not registered to a regulated militia could be legally confiscated by the government.