I believe that if you have a right to protect yourself, now I am not say there should not be stipulatiations on individuals. Such as if you are not legally able to puchase a firearm due to a diagnosed mental illness (not someone claiming that you are mentally ill, such as Red Flag Laws), or current convicted felon. Now, this is where it gets complicated, I do believe if you were convicted of a felony and have served your time, then you get all your constituional rights back. If you go with the notion that they are a danger to society still and should not own a gun , then why are they out of prison?
How is any of what you just stated not an infringement on a person's unequivocal right "to keep and bear Arms"? The right cannot be both absolute and subject to
any restriction. It's one or the other. You seem reasonable in that you do recognize some level of restriction is Constitutional. But if you recognize that some level of restriction is Constitutional, then you have to recognize that the right is therefore not absolute. A truly absolute right is one that is neither given by, nor can be taken away by, Congressional action.
I like your citation to the
dicta in
Murdock; have you read the rest of the case so you know that even the
Murdock court recognized that certain fees and restrictions were appropriate?
Here is a quote for you about what constitutes "Arms" from the now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. As I am sure you know, J. Scalia was very conservative.
"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2791, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).
Interesting definition in the context of M16 or AR "styled" weapons, no?