Why is it that the main objection concerning gun control

[dairydog91]

25. But you're not advocating constructionism, you're advocating turbo-originalism.

Strict Constructionism requires the judge to apply the text as it is written, with absolutely no interpretive gloss. Constructionism would be more likely to lead to the conclusion that since the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," any law which even infringes upon the right of "the people" to keep and carry any "arms" is unconstitutional. First Amendment jurisprudence has headed towards strict constructionism, hence the reason for modern free speech cases which adopt Hugo Black's position that "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress actually can make no law abridging the freedom of speech (Many earlier Justices allowed Congress to make quite a few laws abridging abridging the freedom of speech).

What you're advocating is originalism, taken to the point of self parody. Even Scalia or Thomas would probably guffaw at the idea that a right which protected use of a technology, the technology being defined generally, only protects specific examples of that technology which date back to the time the Constitution was signed. For example, when Scalia wrote the opinion for the video-games as free speech case, he wasn't looking back to the technology of the 1700s to determine whether video games were a technology protected under the right of free speech or freedom of the press.