I am very uncomfortable with the kind of gun-nut extremism which claims that any regulation on gun purchase and/or use constitutes "infringement".

The problem here is that we "gun nut extremists" have learned that if you give the gun control lobby and the Democratic Party an inch, they will take a mile. In their minds, a "reasonable compromise" is one in which, instead of taking away all of our Second Amendment rights today, they take half today and let us keep the other half until tomorrow. Dianne Feinstein has gone on record as saying — and I quote, verbatim — "If I had the votes there in Congress, it'd be 'Turn them in, Mr. and Mrs. America, every last one.'" Barack Obama, when asked if he planned to confiscate firearms from law-abiding Americans, did not say "No"; he said, "The votes aren't there."
I'll leave it to you to figure out what that answer most likely means if he thought the votes were there — which he may well now think, after this election. But I'll point out that in the Illinois legislature he voted in favor of a bill to totally ban all handguns in the State of Illinois; that before being elected to the Illinois legislature, he stated on a poll that he was in favor of confiscating firearms from Illinois citizens; and that since he reached the US Senate, out of eight bills impacting firearms law, he voted for more gun control seven times.
(The eighth was a vote on gun confiscation in the immediate aftermath of the huge public outcry over the City of New Orleans illegally seizing firearms after Hurricane Katrina, and a vote in favor of confiscation would have been political suicide as far as future Presidential candidacy was concerned. So in that one case, he was willing to put his own personal political career goals ahead of his established principles. And we elected this guy?)