The issue isn’t so much the amount of regulation. Hardly anyone, including the vast majority of those who say the Second Amendment protects an individual right, suggests that the amendment is an absolute prohibition on all government regulation of the use and ownership of firearms. YES IT DOES. "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear cut
Yes, they say, the amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from making it illegal for the average citizen to own, say, a grenade launcher or an anti-tank missile.
Those weapons are deployed at the platoon level in an infantry unit. Yes, they are exactly what the Founders of our country wanted in the hands of the militia.
And yes, those who own automatic weapons should register them.
STRIKE 3 ..... Miller is totally unconstitutional.
Here's my take. Looking at original intent, the Founders knew what arms where, and also knew what artillery was. The right guaranteed was to arms, not artillery. So when someone asks if the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to a missle or an attack helicopter, the answer is that the guarantee ends at arms.
As to "shall not be infringed" the word infringe leaves a little wiggle room. Unobstructed might be a good definition. Any waiting period is an obstruction. Unfortunately, a database probably is not.
Finally, as to Miller, it is 100% constitutional. The finding is spot on. The supreme Court in Miller held that even criminals are entitled to possess military-style weapons. The Court then stated that it didn't know if a sawed-off shotgun was a military style weapon. (Since Korea and Vietnam, we now know.) Since Miller wasn't there in court, and no one volunteered, it became a missing fact. The Court stated that is had no notice of the type of weapon being of a character (military) to be protected under the Second Amendment. Had Miller mounted a defense, and showed the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, we'd all be owning M-16s today.
This means that your .380 Astra is probably not protected, but your AR-15 is.
Many district courts have quoted Miller incorrectly, presuming it's holding to be different. Most say that Miller stands for a militia being guaranteed the right to arms. In reality, it states that individuals, even criminals, are guaranteed a right to military-type arms.
I suggest a reading of Miller.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174