Certainly any restrictions other than for a felony conviction are an unconstitutional infringement. Do you consider a liscense to write an political article an unconstitutional law? Do you consider state-government taxation to support the maintainence of a church building to be prohibited by the Constitution unconstitutional? Certainly the latter was ruled Constitutional in the 1820's in a case involving NH. and Congregational Churches. (Congress shall make no law)
The right of the people shall not be infringed is the strongest language within the Bill of Rights. The guarantee is to the people and may be taken as originally binding on any state that has ratified the Constitution. Since by definition a felon may lose some or all civil rights for life or may lose life itself as a punishment such impediment to rights may well be imposed legally but such impediment should be clearly spelled out in the law at the time the felony took place otherwise we as a nation are engaging in ex-post-facto legislation.
The rulings by prior courts limiting the right guaranteed by the Constitution do not impress me any more than the rulings that said seperate but equal impressed me. The history of the meaning of the language and the language itself is clear.
Weapons’ being stolen and used by the enemy is a common occurrence, a weapon that could only be used by friendly partisans could be advantageous for militia use. Being useful for the Militia could actually be a reason to require this technology.
This argument you have advanced does not make sense to me. The use of a militia is by definition a guerilla type formation that does not have standard military issue armament. A government armed force fully supported with supply is the type of unit that will have sufficient armament where there would be an interest in preventing the use of caqptured armaments.