The English monarchy during the 1700's "owned" all things in the realm, including game animals. Hunting for commoners was generally not permitted, but the crown would issue special permits from time-to-time. That all went to heck when the American (and other) colonists had to rely upon hunting for survival, so it was permitted in the colonies and most likely taxed. Although firearms were needed for hunting in the colonies, our founders needed them also for defense. Self defense against Indian attacks, animal attacks, criminals and for militia duty from time-to-time when the French and Spanish tried to horn-in on the action. The government, then as now, could not protect anyone from harm, so "allowed" commoners to defend themselves.
When our founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they had just survived a very brutal war. A war that depended in part, upon the private ownership of military grade arms. A war that was ignited in Lexington and Concord, by the British Army's attempt to seize and confiscate firearms and other militia arms and stores. The British were becoming nervous about the strong colonial militia and some of the actions of the colonists, so they tried gun control. It didn't work then, either.
Having that experience fresh in their memories, it is very unlikely that they would create the Second Amendment for no other purpose than hunting, or militia duty. The idea that the 2nd Amendment is only about the National Guard is a modern concept. The idea of a National Guard, or standing army made most of the founders very nervous. That was one of the things they had recently fought against. I'd like some gun-grabber to point out to me the fouding document that says otherwise.
Hey, watch the History Channel and learn stuff. :)
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Flags%20and%20Icons/freemen.gif)