It's funny that you think you are giving an accurate representation of what it says despite all evidence clearly to the contrary. Without fail you provide comic relief if nothing else.
I told you both what it does say and what it does not say. Read the post that you quoted. There are two sentences about what it does say. I then went on to clarify that what you were claiming it said was false. It does clearly state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it is you that has read into that clause that the word people actually means people that are members of a well regulated militia, and further that a well regulated militia is not what Congress calls the militia, but rather some group that requires a yearly physical, marksmanship capability and training. One would think if the founders wanted to limit firearm ownership to people who had yearly physicals, marksmanship capabilities and training, they would have included those requirements. There was no real question about an individual's right to bear arms until the 1830s. States started banning concealed weapons (some state supreme courts allowed this, others overturned it) and then Georgia tried to ban handguns and their state supreme court smacked them down, saying, "'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right".
I get the impression that when considering a handgun vs. AR-15, you're actually imagining combatants fighting each other with different weapons, instead of a single combatant mowing down a crowd of victims.
The ability to aim and switch more quickly between targets is a distinct advantage even in scenarios where you face no resistance. In scenarios where there is resistance either by the unarmed crowd or by armed guards the advantages become more important. That said, I'm not suggesting that you can't rack up a ridiculous body count one way or the other, you can. The conversation was about the best way to do so.
It sounds like you think about this a lot. Calling the authorities. Where is your trailer parked right now?
