That is interesting take on the 2A. My take is the founders wanted the 2A so the people would have the ability to rise up against tyranny. The 2A had nothing to do with hunting or protection directly, those benefits were just bi- products of the 2A.
From his campaign website: The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
Many assume then that Trump includes self-defense against government tyranny in this definition. However, his words here and in other places I've seen indicate that he sees it solely for self-protection against criminals equally armed:
"You have to [allow Americans to legally buy and own *assault weapons,* whatever those are] because the bad guys are going to have them anyway. What happens when the bad guys have the assault weapons and you don't in a confrontation?"
The "bad guys" are criminals; he's said elsewhere that guns are needed in the citizenry basically because cops can't get there in time to help them if they're facing a criminal.
I ask them -- what about when government uses preventative enforcement technology with such force that cops WILL be able to get there in time? The person who agrees to Trump's version of why the 2A exists, therefore agrees that if cops (use of government) can improve their response time, then the 2A is obsolete.
Cruz acknowledges openly that the 2A is a "fundamental check on government tyranny." He knows that it is required in a free government so that Americans can halt the enforcers of government tyranny.
Trump, on the other hand, thinks it gives people the right to defend themselves with guns against "bad guys." Does he include overreaching government agents (cops, Feds, EPA enforcers, etc.) in that? A lot of people risk a big mistake when they attribute beliefs to Trump that evidence indicates are outside his range.