because the largest fraction of these guns are made for one thing.
killing humans.
So what you're saying is you want to re-write the Constitution or repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Your answer shows your ignorance. The 2nd isn't about and never has been about hunting. You know this. You're just playing the Liberal game. Trying to redefine the 2nd so then you can destroy the 2nd.
So since you and the rest of the Liberal morons continue to try to change it's definition, let's go back to history class.
The 2nd reads: "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."
Weird, that part that says 'being necessary to the security of a free state' but no mention of hunting.
Since you apparently doubt the Founding Fathers' intent, read further.
George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.
Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.
Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.