GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[HairOfTheDog]

That's your interpretation or wish in regard to the meaning of "full possession", F.U. It is not what the Constitution explicitly guarantees.

I see it differently, as does the Supreme Court and much of the population. To me, "full possession" = not having to turn in allowable firearms at the end of the day or end of duty / not having to be under the supervision of government while using allowable firearms. Things of that nature.

It does not mean that all cleared U.S. citizens have a right to possession of any and all firearms, accessories, and ammunition that they can possibly acquire or manufacture. That's why possession of fully automatic weapons is heavily restricted, bump stocks are soon to be banned, gun safes are required in some states, etc. By your interpretation/logic, all of those common sense restrictions are unconstitutional.

Just like it's my right as a U.S. citizen to speak my mind privately and publicly under the First Amendment. However, it is not an absolute right without regulation or restriction. I am not allowed to make death threats, maliciously slander people in a way that infringes on their livelihood or safety, or otherwise engage in public speech that threatens the life and liberty of other U.S. citizens.

That's not my interpretation, HotD. That's was Zacharia Johnson's. Zacharia Johnson a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

I understand Johnson's statement, F.U.

But, "full possession of their arms" is not the same as unregulated unrestricted possession of any and all arms.

So, you when claim that it is, it's because you're interpreting his words/intent beyond the actual words themselves.