Because I would be infringing on his inalienable right to liberty without individual due process. If he murdered someone, and was convicted in a court of law with due process, I may take away HIS liberty -- but not ALL 10-year-olds.
"However, you offer no objective criteria for the distinction".
Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights and CANNOT be removed without individual due process. Right there in the 14th amendment. All the rest are natural rights. There you go. Easy enough for even you to understand.
Now you don't like that, fine. Give me another inalienable right besides life, liberty and property. You did say inalienable rights were not limited to those. I assume, therefore, you have more? Let's hear 'em.
When the founders themselves indicated in such straight forward and unambniguous language that said right, "shall not be infringed", they were making the statement and the case very clearly IMHO.
It seems clear that we can go on all day...back and forth. I will not be deterred or diverted by your language or logic...nor, apparently will you by mine. As I said before, the disagreement on this issue is fundamental.
Ah, so it is the Fourteenth Amendment that distinguishes between "natural" and "inalienable?" That's an interesting take. Very original, but not very useful since the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't really enumerate these "inalienable" rights, once again leaving the interpretation open to whoever has the guns to enforce it.
Let's take a more concrete example. I have a right to refuse any and all medical procedures on my body. Is that an inalienable right or a natural right? According to your (arbitrary) criteria, it appears to be a natural right and subject to the whims of democracy and/or oligarchy. And please don't bother trying to shoehorn this into one of your enumerated "inalienable" rights (like telling me my body is my property). That is also arbitrary since it allows anyone with sufficient capacity in rhetoric and argument (i.e. a lawyer) to redefine the criteria.
In any case, this is foolish. Your distinctions between classes of rights are straw men invented from whole cloth to support your collectivist argument against the blanket right to keep and bear arms and your convenience definitions of what constitutes arms. The inalienable nature of a right and any post facto requirement for due process of law to violate it has nothing to do with an assumed collectivist right to regulate it. The Bill of Rights is very clear that the government, most specifically the federal government, must not abridge its enumerated rights. Your personal incredulity that they would unequivocally disallow collectivist regulation of these rights is insufficient to negate the fact that they chose to do so.