It ought to be self-explanatory. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; aside from the Second Amendment’s outlining the right to keep and bear arms, the Fourth Amendment guaranteeing the right of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” is what applies. Tying a person’s hands by state law with respect to accusing them of “murder(ing)” a deliberate intruder who enters in the middle of the night violates the Fourth Amendment and such laws and rulings are unconstitutional.
Nobody is challenging the right to keep and bear arms in this case.
"...the Fourth Amendment guaranteeing the right of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” is what applies. Tying a person’s hands by state law with respect to accusing them of “murder(ing)” a deliberate intruder who enters in the middle of the night violates the Fourth Amendment and such laws and rulings are unconstitutional."
Absolute nonsense. Nothing in the 4th gives you the right to kill someone for entering your home. That is not what it says.
When you resort to making stuff up to win an argument it's a sign that you should give up the argument. You are losing.