I assumed "infringed" meant what it means according to the dictionary. Given the sentence structure, that would mean something like "encroached upon." Any limitation on my right to own weapons would encroach upon that right. So yes, the fact that I can't buy a nuclear weapon if I have the means and inclination to do so is a violation of the intent and phrasing of the 2nd Amendment. I have already stated previously that I am willing to accept infringements (!) on the 2nd Amendment if it is demonstrably in the best interest of the general public to create them. I am, in fact, in favor of banning at least all fully automatic weapons from private ownership. That said, I don't pretend it isn't a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm just accepting that certain things simply don't make enough sense to justify the risks, and the Constitution needs to be, in a sense, altered through interpretation. There is plenty of precedent for things like this, so it's not a huge problem for me. But I still see it as a clear violation of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, so I think you do have to be able to win the battle over whether the benefits outweigh the harms of the Constitutional violation rather than just saying "maybe things would be a little bit better if we violate your 2nd-Amendment rights." I don't think that adequately satisfies the burden of proof required.