Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

What you fail to understand is that those rifles whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire are too similar to their military issue counterparts. They should also be banned.

The Constitution is not irrelevant. When you violate people's civil liberties you are committing a grave atrocity.

This is why you have to pay massive compensation to your victims before I will support any new gun laws.

InfraBlue wrote:

What you fail to understand is that those rifles whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire are too similar to their military issue counterparts. They should also be banned.

Merely being a military weapon, or merely being similar to a military weapon, does not create a compelling government interest in restricting a weapon.

A compelling government interest would be if there were something about the weapon that made it an actual public danger.

What I was referring to was the part about "a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest." That is not in the Constitution, which moots your entire assertion.

I'm going to take away your wriggle room by taking this one step at a time.

You are on record as saying that you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous.

Good so far?

InfraBlue wrote:

What I was referring to was the part about "a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest." That is not in the Constitution, which moots your entire assertion.

If you want to go by "what is in the Constitution" there is no authorization in the Constitution for any restrictions of any kind on any fundamental right.

So if you want to invalidate 75 years worth of Supreme Court rulings to instead strictly follow the text of the Constitution, that would make all gun control of any sort unconstitutional.

Since you are obviously reluctant to own up to what you have stated, I will do it for you. You are indeed on record as saying that you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous.

That wasn't so hard, now was it.

Now, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, do you also believe that such a rifle should be banned?

It's déjà vu all over again.

There is nothing that completely restricts gun regulation in the Constitution.

You're confusing judicial review with the Constitution.

"A compelling government interest" is not found in the Constitution.

The banning of assault weapons through the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act was deemed to not violate the Equal Protection Clause by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals.

Okay, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, it's a no-brainer that you would want any rifle with a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, to be banned.

So we'll start with the pistol-grip. How does a pistol-grip make a rifle especially dangerous?

InfraBlue wrote:

There is nothing that completely restricts gun regulation in the Constitution.

That is incorrect. The fact that the Constitution does not authorize restrictions on fundamental rights means that all such restrictions are unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confusing judicial review with the Constitution.

No confusion. Judicial review allows restrictions on fundamental rights if they can be justified as serving a compelling government interest. The Constitution itself authorizes no restrictions of any sort on a fundamental right.

InfraBlue wrote:

"A compelling government interest" is not found in the Constitution.

Correct. According to the strict text of the Constitution, there is no authorization for any restrictions at all on a fundamental right.

So if you want to ditch judicial review and go strictly by the text of the Constitution, that means no gun control of any sort.

InfraBlue wrote:

The banning of assault weapons through the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act was deemed to not violate the Equal Protection Clause by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals.

Progressive judges routinely allow the Constitution to be violated. That does not mean that it is actually OK to violate the Constitution.

Confusion indeed, you're still muddling judicial review with the Constitution.

In regard to judicial review, the banning of assault weapons passed US Appeals Court muster.

There is no disallowance of restrictions according to the strict text of the Constitution, as well.

Your opinion is duly noted.