CriticalReader,

With all due respect, you appear to have little factual grasp of what the 2nd Amendment was historically intended to accomplish.  It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting (subsistence or otherwise) nor does it have anything to do with any sort recreational pursuit.  By mentioning the U.S. military and "Federal law enforcement" (whatever that is) as reasons to mitigate the the 2nd Amendment, you fatally weaken your argument. 
 
Also, due to landmark civil rights decisions, the "militia" as it has presently evolved, can now be interpreted to include all enfranchised adults, irrespective of age or economic status.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment constitutes an INDIVIDUAL right, unconnected with service or membership in a militia.

I frankly don't see a serious challenge to the 2nd Amendment in the near future and for one reason: President Trump will almost surely appoint two new Supreme Court Justices.