Not true - the right cannot be infringed, but it can be regulated.
Same difference.
You call it 'regulated' - I call it 'infringed'. Advocates of tyranny such as yourself have even used this 'reasonably regulated' argument to suggest that all guns citizens own must be kept at a local police station locked up, because they deem that to be 'reasonable'.
Which is no different than gun registration (reasonable) and gun confiscation (reasonable - according to your fellow advocates of tyranny).
What is 'reasonable' changes with the wind with the likes of people like you and is often decided by your own perverted and twisted ideas of what is deemed 'reasonable'.
We're not going to suffer such bullshit.
There's little doubt under the Constitution that guns can be required to be registered and insured,
Also according to you there's little doubt that abortion and homosexual marriage magically exist somewhere there in the Constitution also. As always with Leftist tyrants like you - enumerated Rights can be 'reasonably regulated' out of existence and behaviors that are not even hinted at are magically found in the parchment as being untouchable Writs from Above. Telling us on your own authority that there's little doubt that guns and ammunition can be 'reasonably regulated' is a humongous and exceedingly vast amount of rotting bovine excrement.
so long as that burden doesn't rise to a level that effectively denies the right.
Who defines that - YOU????? Regulation upon an Inalienable Right by it's very nature dissolves said Right and consigns it to no more than a government privilege. Nothing you say or argue will negate that fact. 'Reasonable regulation' means the Inalienable Right no longer exists except by license, permission, definition and grant of government that can then decide what abolition and restriction and infringement is 'reasonable'. Which is EXACTLY what you advocate Mr. Tyranny.
What was in doubt for two centuries, and remains fragile pending the composition of the Supreme Court, is whether the gun right is an individual right, or is part and parcel of the "well regulated militia" addressed in the amendment's predicate clause.
It was NEVER in doubt until Leftists like yourself decided our inalienable rights are just grants of government. You could order a semi-automatic rifle from a Sears catalog back in the day. It was NEVER in doubt or fragile until people like you began telling us that our rights can be 'reasonably regulated'.
The Constitution means jack-shit to you as it is redefined and regulated into whatever it is you tyrants deem 'acceptable'.
Just be forwarned - what you advocates for tyranny define as acceptable regulation and restriction, people like me regard as overt tyranny deserving armed resistance with extreme prejudice. Now if you want to go ahead and get this cold war with gun owners go hot - keep pushing the kind of stupid tyrannical pap that you do. We went to war over much less than what you people have been pushing.
That individual right derives, of course, from the natural right of self-defense of person, home and property. NOT the natural right to overthrow the government, as some of the whackos contend.
The Founding Fathers and the States that ratified the Constitution after the Declaration and War of Independence from the legitimate lawful Authority of the Crown of England, disagree with you.
Vehemently in accords with their own writings.
We have inherent and inalienable right to defend our liberty against tyrants, criminals and anyone who seeks to deprive us of that liberty - ESPECIALLY agents of the state attempting to impose the tyranny you advocate under the color of "law".
