No. But if I read you correctly, you are endorsing "infringment". Is that better?
What word would you use as you declare entire classes of "modern" firearms illegal?
That is what you are advocating, is it not?
I do not believe that private individuals should be allowed to possess bazookas, nuclear weapons, RPGs, Abrams tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter planes, B-52s, intercontinental ballistic missiles or anthrax. Nor is it practical to allow heavy weaponry within highly congested places.
There is no "right" possessed by individuals to endanger others. A gangbanger under attack by another gangbanger has no right to shoot a little girl because he is firing back at someone shooting at him.
Militias of which the Second amendment speaks were to be "well-regulated" not a haphazard mob of devotees. They were to be officered by men appointed by the State and drilled to federal regulations.
That is NOT what the Absolutists are about.
The only problem with unlimited arming of the population with weapons of massive firepower is the danger posed by living as close together as people do today. Then there are large numbers of people who are too irresponsible to have firepower. The "People" spoken of by our founders were not composed of welfare deadbeats without a trace of responsibility in their bones or large criminal gangs. Do I want to see large welfare high rises filled with people armed to the teeth? No. Do I fear a person who has been trained in the safe use of weapons of any caliber or rapidity of fire? No.
The Absolutists act as though we do not have huge populations of non-taxpaying leechs who would be happy to be able to prey upon the productive classes.
Modern firepower is not as simple and easily controlled as those of 1789. If "infringement" means there is no control over firearms and that ANY individual, no matter how criminal or mentally ill or immature or untrained, can get ANY arm he wishes then I am for infringement.
If "infringement" means the disarming of responsible citizenry who are trained in the use of weapons then I am opposed to it.
But the idea of the People today is far different than the Founders had and its quality has declined precipitously in the intervening centuries. Our Founders would have seen no problem in the disarming of criminal or irresponsible individuals.