I'm sorry....but your post displays that your understanding of Constitutional analysis doesn't go much beyond your high school "civics" class.
Good try there cochise, but that civics class example was set out to show how easy the concepts are. I was stating college level poli-sci theorum, taught by political modern liberals and centrists. You fail.
There are multiple layers of analysis depending on the level of the right infringed upon and the class of individuals infringed upon.
That part you are actually right on, but you are wrong on the level of protection you are trying to apply, you are trying to use the most outer circle, that being limited to no protection as applied to harmful speech or useless speech and applying it incorrectly to the harmless action of simple posession of certain firearms, which can harm no one and has the same usage as other firearms, hence, you are wrong, as would anyone else be trying to use that standard/
If the right is "fundamental" or the class of individuals determined to be a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringment must be compelling
Glad you're starting to see the truth, now, what's the compelling interest of marking certain guns illegal, especially since almost none of them are used in crime.
If the right is not "fundamental" or the class of individuals is not a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringement need only be "legitimate".
The bill of rights are fundamental, always have been considered such, so therefore the onus is on government to prove a credible argument, which it has never done.
unless you understand this multiple level, fairly complex process, its difficult to debate the issue.
I've already shown how you mis-apply it, and you haven't covered anything I haven't known for years, so what's your point?