Not really, because certain infringements have been established as being constitutional. Background checks, special permits/tax stamps for particular kinds of weapons or accessories, the outright banning of certain arms, etc. Once you allow one infringement, the whole "shall not be infringed" argument becomes moot.
So, either you argue for total unrestricted access to any and all weaponry for any citizen, or you agree to discuss the grounds on which the government can impose certain regulations.
It seems that you concede that current laws already infringe on the 2nd Amendment. The problem with arguing that this makes the 2nd Amendment moot is that it leads to the argument that
all of the US Constitution is a moot point.
That said, I think you come close to the central debate. From a history standpoint, I'm thinking of laws that prohibited Bowie knives and Arkansas Toothpicks. This is perhaps particularly apt because there wasn't a clear idea of what these weapons were, so it's very much in line with the "assault weapon" label of today. To the best of my knowledge, bans on such never reached the US Supreme Court.
Various firearm regulations have, which you are alluding to. I'm trying to think if one prior to the 14th Amendment went to the USSC. That was during firearm confiscation from blacks after the end of the US Civil War. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the argument went that since blacks weren't citizens, they weren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. That non-citizen argument was used to justify other things, such as denying the right to vote, and all of it together is why there's a 14th and 15th Amendment. My guess is that you're referring to
United States vs Miller, which is slightly different than the topic at hand, but raises the question of whether it was the right decision.
Some here may be interested in a paper titled
Freedmen with Firearms, by David H. Schenk, Marquette University, which details confiscation of firearms from blacks in the United States.
My opinion is shaped by what history I know of it, But mainly it's that the 2nd Amendment is clear: "...Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. It's not how it's treated, mainly out of convenience, yet if the US Constitution is to have any real meaning, then it and the amendments should be regarded as meaning what is written. If the 2nd Amendment is problematic, the proper way of doing things is introduce and ratify another amendment, not pretending it doesn't say what it says. That's important, because if a constitutionally protected right can be infringed in the name of expediency, then the constitution means nothing.
That, of course, means convicted felons could own firearms. Unlike the 14th Amendment, which contains a provision for removing the right to vote from those guilty of crimes, there is none in the 2nd. Whether that includes those who are mentally ill is more hazy (I'm thinking of the 1st Amendment ruling that stated it didn't give one the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater." Yet if the 2nd can be abridged in such instances, what of the 4th and 14th?
If anyone wants an example of what happens when such laws are enacted in the name of expediency, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 is a good example. Out of fear of French style revolt in the US, there were a set of laws enacted to prevent sedition. Problem was, they were also used to squelch criticism of President John Adams, but not Vice-President Thomas Jefferson. No doubt there was the feeling "We've got to do
something," but the something they did had effects beyond the intent.