Not true. There is a "perception" that their isn't an absolute (based on the "collective" argument and the Miller case - and that's a modern thing). Gun control groups place all their 2nd amendment arguments in that one basket. There is very little precedent or case law for any gun control legislation (It exists but has not been tested up to the supreme court). And that which is there (Emerson - at the federal appellate level) puts gun control legislation on tenuous ground (In effect clairifying that the Miller case may limit non military weapons (In that case a sawed of shotgun) - but allowing anything the military would use. Including automatic weapons) - placing the argument against gun control based on the collective rights argument on slippery ground. Just for clarification.
So in sum. Gun legislation either tries to skirt second amendment issues or is based on the sole supreme court case of Miller. In other words - until a Second Amendment case is presented to the supreme court on gun control merits - it is still an absolute right, and the well regulated milita clause is still a predicated clause.