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.
Keeping firearms out of the hands of "criminal or irresponsible individuals" makes sense on its face. However, the definition of "criminal or irresponsible" varies considerably depending on who's in charge. From living in California for almost twenty years, I learned that the majority of self-anointed demagogues in that states' quasi-totalitarian government consider anyone who owns so much as a .22lr single-shot is considered "criminal or irresponsible".
They themselves were always immune to this definition, however. Interesting how that works...