The 2nd Amendment's main focus when written was preserving the ability of government to form a militia when and if needed.

The amendment in and of itself is actually quite short. The extrapolation and application of it due to some "tricky" language is of course a much longer story.

"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."

If you look at much of the discussion that lead to the amendments, all of what was discussed regarding the 2nd had to do with protecting the nation against foreign invasion via militias, the military, a navy, etc. This history does not include anything in the way of dialog regarding individuals rights to protect themselves, but rather it speaks to their duty to protect their country. It does seem logical that those two things would go hand in hand though.

Conversely, much of the content or the foundation of the first ten amendments (bill of rights) was based on other existing bills and laws which did speak more clearly to the rights of individuals to bear arms for personal protection and hunting specifically. There is also language that talks about the government right to disarm the people when and if needed in those preceding documents as well.

All good context to keep in mind when folks start quoting the 2nd amendment as their "right" to own any weapon they want, unimpeded and unregulated by the man. That simply wasn't the intent near as we can tell.