I don't know if you are pro gun rights, or anti gun rights.
I also made the statement that supports your argument that in order to be a part of the militia you were not required to have owned a weapon,preferably-using common sense- it would have been preferable that you"- BYOW"-and Booze too.When discussing second amendments rights it has been agreed upon many times that the founders had in mind the defense of the newly formed country -comprised of individual states- and the states powers as related to those of federallisim,also the states ability to defend themselves-therefore the phrase the right of the people to bare arms meant a militia,militia is a plurality,They meant they had a right to have an army,to defend themselves against a foreign entities if and when federallisim had failed .Common sense dictates,that as an individual you were allowed gun ownership,to protect yourself from all kind of threats from alien invaders and the wilderness alike....But !!? when making the statement the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon,they were specifically talking about a militia, and that militia was formed to protect the people whom were individuals comprised of women and children and themselves ( who probably didn't have the right to bare arms ) Essentially,they were discussing states,rights, not individual rights.The states right to defend it self when under some kind of siege with a para military, the militia.When and if federallisim at failed
......and,once again the arguments about second amendment rights are about ,not of right to gun ownership,but the arguments are about ,how much gun do you need.

So far as it being none of your business and you not knowing the in's and out's connotes that you think it is of a sinister nature so far my being some kind of societal out cast.If you did no the ends and outs of it you wouldn't believe it ,and then when you found it to be true you would find it laughable,evidently the police do.

My fault,you misconscrued what I meant as to why I don't turn my guns in to the local police stations.My answer to that is because the police stations already have them,and not voluntarily so.I can't turn in what has already been confiscated.
.....or maybe not my fault;as suspected,"YOU PEOPLE" simply ,contrary to what you have advance into a popular belief; are slow on the uptake,and have all kind of trouble figuring out the down low.

I can't do that because the police department generally confiscates them ,(I needed it to verse IDIOTS like you)in order for "YOU PEOPLE" to feel better and to protect people like you,because you hit a last nerve,the police confiscates my guns........ ONCE AGAIN !!!! the argument is not whether you have a right to own a gun,the arguments are pretty much; HOW BIG A GUN DO YOU NEED!.I stated in an earlier post I know people who owned surface to air missles,and today they are in jail,I agree with the idea of how big a gun do you need,that is to say,people whom want surface to air missles, and want nuclear capability can only have psychiatric bad intentions

..AND WHAT PRE-TELL IS U.S CODE.!!!!!
!!!!BECAUSE A MILITARY HAD NOT BEEN FORMED YET.!!!
THE MILITARY WAS MADE OUT OF THE MILITIA,!!!THE MILITIA FORMED THE MILITARY,!!!!OUT OF THEIR MILITIA CAME THE ARMY WHICH IS THE MILITARY.!!!! THE MILITA WAS THE PROTOTYPE OF A NATIONAL GUARD,IT IS LIKE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE.!!! WHETHER OR NOT YOU OWNED A GUN OR NOT YOU WERE EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE;!! WAS THERE ANY LAW THAT STATED THAT YOU MUST HAVE OWNED A MUSKETT.!!!! ONLY THE LAW OF COMMON SENSE DECREED
THAT YOU OWNED A GUN......
.....A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.? DID THE COUNTRY, AT THAT TIME HAVE AN ARMY,NAVY,OR AIRFORCE,NO ! BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST YET,NEITHER DID THE CONSTITUTION, THERE FORE,THERE COULD NOT BEEN A LAW STATING WHETHER YOU COULD OWN A GUN OR NOT.WHEN THEY DID MAKE THE LAW,THEY REFERRED TO IT AS HAVING TO BE REGULATED,CONTROLLED,IF THEY CONTROLLED YOU ,WHOM WERE PART OF THE MILITIA,THEN THEY CONTROL THE GUNS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE OWNED."you people"can't except being wrong,when it is perceived by you that you are,like B.Clinton,you quibble in semantics.

I wouldn't shoot someone "FOR WHAT"neither,however I would shoot someone that broke into my house.
I change that.The way people act nowadays,it is understandable why some one would shoot some one "FOR WHAT".

Like every thing else in this dumbed down America so goes the SCOTUS.
Those Supremacies of a Latter day,might render any type of right-wing partisan ass ruling.I can't recall exactly what it was,nor what it was about,but I do remember who gave a ruling so consistently conservativly biased,and rudimentary in the explanation for ruling as such ,you would've thought it was written and handed down by supreme court justice Donald John Trump;it was` Scaly`before he died.
You are right about one thing,my version was rebuked by the current supreme Court,I remember when they did it.They contended that the second amendment was talking about the individuals right to bare arms.No where did the Constitution refer to an individuals right to bare arms nor did it speak at anytime of a singularity as opposed to the plurality. It was Scalia whom handed down the ruling.
This is when it occurred to me as a American citizen of the USA.That in order to remain a Democratic free society, the Supreme Court must be revamped.The problem is we live in a free competitive society and just like the ordinary Joe in are society, Supreme Court Justices have ambition and are flawed human beings. Just as clergy are Chastisized and cannot totally adhere to their chastity neither can Justices be pure un biased in their interpertations of the constitution as it is written,therefore the tendacys to be faulty in their rulings would be based upon not bi-,partisanship but on their ambition,as opposed to the conviction of morality, and that morality would be to rule according to the principles and values that the constitution conveys,not rule to appease the top one percent that has the money.

As far as I know the number of guns you can own is not limited,However,the size and type of weapon you can own evidently is....I've known people that have been sent to jail for the purchase and ownership of surface to air missles.

Wyatt Earp died in 1929, practically of old age,at 80,more precisely he died of urinary tract infection at his home in Los Angeles ,in bed.

"YOU PEOPLE" seem to have a problem with interpretation.I believe in the right to self defense also.The chief argument from I and other second amendment opponents is not whether or not you have a right to own a gun,but more or less how many and how big a gun are you allowed to own,a lot of you second amendment enthusiast want a small arsenal,and at least ,at least, a smidgent of nuclear capability

If you had an understanding of the second Amendment you would know that it was not talking exclusively about individual rights to carry guns,It was referring to the country (We the People)as a whole.If you had been properly educated you would know the proper way to read,and that is to decern what the writer means (when in doubt about a word,or what he is trying to pervay)you are supposed to consider the surrounding words and the context of the conversational/dialogue in which they speak of-and what were the founders doing and discussing ? that's right,the forming of the laws and rules in which we would be governed. "We",meaning the country,not individuals.So - when discussing the right to bear(wrong word,it should have been BARE) they were discussing the collective armament of the country,the right to bare a militia,from the word military,meaning an ARMY.So that WE THE PEOPLE,THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (an entity being born,could defend it self.)
Where you got the word or phrase equalizer, came about when Samuel Colt innovated the Colt forty five,he called it the equalizer ,whether you know it or not.

Zimmerman was more or less hispanic,and I think a little bit Jewish.In any event he was acting in a neighbor Hood watch capacity.He legally had no justification for accosting (Trevan) the youth whom was murdered.I , having acted in a similar law enforcement capacity know the rules of engagement regarding such incidents.Had not Zimmerman had the type of personality flaw I alluded about in an earlier post(one of those right wing lunatics) he well may not have confronted Trevan ; had not he had a weapon.To substantiate my theory about his right wing cowardness,he was the bigger man,he was the stronger more maturer man,and still knowing he had a gun ,he elected to use it- after the police told him to abort-also ,were he not psychologically flawed , and carrying a weapon he wouldn't have acted on a compulsion to prove his man hood after being humiliated by a young boy.He probably would have followed police orders and aborted.This is why most police departments do not agree with the current conceal and carry law.His life wouldn't have been in Jeopardy were he not a personality flawed,overzealous, right wing, feelings of great inadequatcy loony.

....and, conversely there is not a stat that reveals how many lunatics don't commit right wing lunatic acts out of fear they will get their asses whipped.
The colt 45,(Samuel Colt) the equalizer, came along after the Constitution was written.

Maga chicks are inherently hot,they gotta be, otherwise they wouldn't be Maga chicks
They wouldn't be accepted.It wouldn't make any sense to be a suck up for the money if they are not desired -ala -Renee Magnum.Evidently she wasn't hot enough.

In herently this cannot apply to a minority group of men.The minority by definition is always at a disadvantage.Therefore your therorum cannot apply as readily as it does to the minority ,as it does to the majority....and,I would venture to say , further,the minority given the fact that he survives ,exhibits traits that signifies courage far beyond the normal parameters of that of the average man,providing that he has some degree of cognizance of the circumstances,some , like an animal,do not have an awareness that while charging a man with a device or item,that item will release a projectile capable of inflicting pain,the animal does not have a concept of life or the perennials of it,it only has instincts for survival.