I remain of the opinion that the entire concept of "reasonable" regulation, as applied to the 2nd Amendment, is a modern construct that is totally at odds with the language of the Constitution itself. A regulation -- ANY regulation -- is by definition an infringement. And the clear and unambiguous language of the 2nd Amendment says that the RKBA "shall not be infringed."
It does NOT say, "shall not be UNREASONABLY infringed." The 2nd Amendment is an absolute statement, an absolute bar against infringing the RKBA in any way. It's just plain silly (IMHO) to argue that the Founders certainly intended to allow "reasonable regulation." Balderdash! If they had intended that, they would have said that. After all, in penning the amendment dealing with search warrants, they used the 'R' word ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..."), which tells us that they were familiar with the concept of reasonableness (if I may be permitted to create a word) and were fully capable of using it where they intended it to apply. That they did NOT use the 'R' word in the 2nd Amendment, but DID use it in the 4th Amendment, is IMHO extremely significant.
Sadly, nobody has seen fit to appoint me to the SCOTUS, so my views on this won't even buy a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.