I didn't do a close read here, but what I see entirely ABSENT in any of these discussions is the legal premise behind Constitutional Law --
Constitutional Civil Liberties are intended to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Best and most often cited example is desegregation in the Deep South. The MAJORITY of Southerners in the 1950's, 1960s before desegregation supported segregation. That was the majority sentiment.
But SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" (1896, Plessy v. Ferguson) is not equitable. 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate is inherently unequal. 14th Amendment ruled that segregation was a Constitutional violation.
Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights is right in there politically/historically with Moses and the Ten Commandments. The Bill of Rights is carved in stone --
Second Amendment has been problematic. SCOTUS has be reluctant to rule on the 2nd because SCOTUS has been leery of the unintended consequences of any 2nd Amendment ruling might have on case law (stare decisis) -- how any ruling by SCOTUS determines subsequent rulings by the court.
We have McDondald v. Chicago, and Heller v. Wash. DC -- Both ruling that RKBA is an individual right, that it's not about a "militia." And Scalia writes that the means of accessible defense is and should be "commonly used handguns." (Not a stretch to argue that "commonly used" should include rifles, and the AR is currently the most common rifle in the USA.)
Doesn't matter if 78% of America's mis-informed, clueless, reactionary gun grabbers think assault weapons are a bad idea and ought to be banned. First of all, they're not "assault weapons." And second (as in Second Amendment) the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS asserts:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
-- Doesn't matter how the tyrannical majority feel about this right. It's God given and Constitutionally enacted.