+297: This is the book and my argument for the second amendment

 This is the book and the argument for the second amendment I have been making

https://arrangedfortheindividualpost.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-book.html

+296

 What I have been making (and continue to be) is more like a book which I intend to title "Language Reasoning Roots and The Writ For The Constitution, With The Interpretation For The Second Amendment".

+295

  I should not need to do this, because I already gave myself there an easy option to exit anytime I want, but still I am going to make one exception here and say that even had I not already made Post +294 I would have made it now. 

Actually, that post has a potential shortcoming (aside from misspelling "winning") that may conflict a little bit with the purpose of trying to free the thinking of the other side from spending unnecessary effort here. I am going to correct that here by saying that I am the primary not the secondary decider for the responsibility on myself regarding the extensions of time I am taking here.   

+294

 Related to the preceding post, I want to make things clearer by saying that at least while I still have not presented a new argument, I consider myself the one choosing, for myself, to allow the passing of time here and I also consider myself as responsible for the effect of the additional time I am taking here, on myself, the same way someone requesting an extension of time for his official case would be responsible for the consequences resulting from granting his request including the possibility of unnecessary delaying of his own wining of that case.      

+293

This related to post +291 but from the other side. I am not taking what I have been taking of time waiting for other people to decide for me that I be done arguing.  

+292: For A Real Justice System

 For anyone here involved in making penal laws here is an important test: Imagine that people you do not know from a country you do not know came to you and asked you to make their penal laws and you accept. Any difference in the laws between there and here should not be based on the mere difference in the identities of the people and countries between there and here. Justice systems should be rooted at being an individual not being a privileged group. 

+291

 Related to arguing the second amendment I just want to point out that I post even though not finished, trying to take advantage of the freedom from formality, I am privileged with here which does not restrict me to one submission, to make better time utilization. But I am not dependent on the readers to correct or complete the lacking they read. 

Of course the above was related to the issue that is the focus of the argument being read. I realize how I often write loosely and depend on the reader to take things based on my intension.   

+290 (second amendment interpretation 216: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 9)

 As usual, better thoughts occur to me after I post and here is one related to how the reference to the abstract of a common noun leads to actual instance(s). The having the capability argument I made there now seems to me unnecessary. Because it is clear the abstract of a common noun is just a mental thing and cannot exist in the world outside on its own. Therefore if the reference to the abstract was made for the world outside then there is already a targeted instance for that reference. In other words, it seems like whether it is the instance or the abstract we specify, the thing to which the reference was made is already there and the difference between those two kind of references is just a matter of from which part of it that thing gets picked up.

Using the same Jim lifted the boxes example of the preceding post  to explain the above we say that there Jim's capability for mere existence in the environment targeted by the sentence is not by itself sufficient to validate the sentence and therefore the reference to Jim needs to extend to the capabilities he has according to that environment. On the other hand, the mere reference  to the abstract of a common noun in a sentence targeting as its environment the world outside the thoughts is sufficient to have that reference include an instance of that common noun, because the abstract of a common noun cannot exist there on its own. 

Let's construct an analogy here.  I could look at a scene where one person is handing, let's say a long broom, to another, length wise. Now let us suppose that I look at another scene that is exactly identical in every thing to the first except that I can only see the two persons and only for the handing person I can also see his hand holding one side of the broom, because I am looking at the scene through two windows separated by a section of the wall where those windows exist. In this scene, as much as  I am sure that nothing can interrupt the broom and that the other person is there to receive the broom accordingly, I can say that the other side of the broom was handed like I do with the first scene where I am able to see everything. In this analogy the person who is to whom the broom should be handed represents the outside world, the person handing the broom represents the speaker of a sentence containing a reference to the abstract of a common noun, the handing of the broom is the speaking of that sentence, and the broom itself represents the reference to the whole combination of an instance and the abstract of that common noun with the side of the tip of the broom at the handing person representing the reference to the abstract of a common noun. Since no possibility of any thing going wrong exists here, one can take the reference to the abstract of a common noun, to include a reference to an instance of that common noun.   

Update:

The above seems to be still lacking and I intend to deal with that. 

+289 (second amendment interpretation 216: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 8)

 Before starting with the amendment, although may not be necessary, I want to add this argument to the part related to the need to refer to things through their existence in the future in order to have the authority of the Constitution applied to them, in post 286. What is being added here is the answer to the question that if there are multiple things with different time sequence preceding the existence of the Constitution, how can just simple future reference like saying "shall" refer to the future that is further away? The answer is that the sequence in time here is just a sequence required for the order. It is not like there is something that needs to be done and therefore enough time should be reserved for it.  Therefore  regardless of how soon the action corresponding to that "shall" can happen, there is always enough time preceding it for all the precedences in time there.  

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We need here to revisit the concept of definite and indefinite articles in the English grammar. This revisit starts with going far enough to ask why should there be an indefinite article to begin with? One can easily see the need for the definite article to provide its special designation. But why not use the original form of the word for the indefinite reference? After all anything is either known or unknown. The answer to this question comes in two parts. First, with regard to using just the original form of a common noun in a sentence the answer is that doing that can only enable referring to every existing instance of that common noun. This lacking may not be apparent, because having the definition of a noun of that type refers to only one instance, and the singularity of the referring action itself in a sentence may seem not to allow more than one instance, even though they do not. For example, logically, one cannot say Car needs maintenance to refer to the need for maintenance for only one car in the entire existence. Instead that sentence conveys that every car needs maintenance, even though the word "car" refers to one car, and even with assuming that sentence was said only once. That is because the number of applications for that sentence depends on the number of fits it has. There is a fit for the word "car" wherever there is a car, and therefore there is a fit for the sentence wherever there is a car.  

The second part of the answer for the question above is about trying to fix that multiplicity problem by adding the number of instances to the common noun as in One car needs maintenance. Yes that solves the multiplicity problem but the indefiniteness is directed toward the status of being in that number of instances not the instance itself. 

Instead, the indefinite article deals with the problem of multiplicity while at the same time applies the indefiniteness to the targeted instance itself by referring to the abstract version of that common noun, which is shared by every instance. And indefiniteness through this way can also be applied to more than one instance through a new common noun which every instance of it has that number of instances as in A set of two cars need maintenance. Let's  take a look at how things work here.   

The abstract of a common noun brings with itself as many as required instances of that common noun for the sentence containing the reference to the abstract to be valid. So, for example, even though "A car" in "A car needs maintenance" is just an abstract reference on its own, in this sentence it refers to one car if the sentence is taken as applicable for the outside world (what I call the actuality ).   In other words, the reference to the car abstract here extends through that abstract to include one instance. This is not something special just for here. For example, depending on the environment with regard to which it is said, the sentence Jim lifted the boxes can be correct even if Jim did not do that by himself but used a forklift machine or hired other people to do the lifting. Because if Jim has that capability, the reference to Jim can reach that capability through him and therefore includes that capability. However, unlike the various possibilities in this analogy, like, for example, being in a sport lifting competition and therefore using a forklift is considered invalid and therefore it is not part of Jim capabilities if the sentence was said to be applicable on that environment,  here we are concerned about the validity of the sentence according to the existence in the world in general not any specific environment. Therefore we do not have a possibility of invalidity here. Also, while Jim could have lifted the boxes without the help of a forklift even if he is allowed to use that machine, there is no other valid option here. If the reference to the abstract of a common noun is intended for the world outside then it must be taken to extend to actual instance(s), with the assumption of validity of the sentence. Therefore the reference to the abstract of a common noun can include instance(s) to fit the requirement of the sentence for actual existence of those instance(s). So in a sentence like A car needs maintenance, the reference to the abstract extends to include only one instance (one car). That is because the existence requirement of the sentence is satisfied by one instance, and one instance is included with any more than one.   

Now let's take the discussion to our core interest here.  If, there is a comma after the reference to the abstract version of the common noun, then the abstract should be completely constructed according to the actuality requirement if it exist. That means extending the reference, to the abstract, to include every instance of that common noun at the same time. So while A car needs maintenance refers to only one instance, A car, needs maintenance refers to every instance, all at once. Similarly, the reference to the abstract version of well regulated Militia in the amendment extends through that abstract to include in its reference every well regulated Militia, all at the same time. "all at the same time" here is intended to mean that the reference does not have the single instance at time limitation like if the word "any" was used instead, not that the instances are referred to collectively.  

Grammer guys may frown at what they may call separating the subject from the verb with a comma. But in situations like this the comma is separating only the text while in fact needed to construct the subject. Although any frowning for this issue may be considerably less for such comma use with the amendment than that with the finite verb example I used, if at all. 

Capitalizing the word "Militia" makes the well regulated Militia refers to one single thing. That in turn requires that all the instances of a well regulated Militia to which the reference to that abstract is extended must be taken as one single thing. So, it is that group as one single thing, that must be necessary to the security of a free State. 

The above means that "being necessary to the security of a free State", is about neither just any nor every well regulated Militia. Instead it is a determination which, although may be reached through deciding the necessity of individual members of the group of all well regulated Militias, its end result is about that group as one single thing with regard to the security of a free State. In other words, the end result here is of the kind that is, like they say, a "package deal". And the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part also seems familiar, like when we say, for example, "A grocery store should provide the food of a person" without intending the meaning of that to be necessarily taken starting from the  reference to the person as fixed locality (Although I am not giving that much priority here because either way would not matter to my position).    

"security of a free State" is about the security of the state as one single thing in the world. It is not about security of the people of the State. I kept looking for a conclusive technical argument for that until I noticed how abnormal was that. The word "of", despite how often and easily it can be taken without doubting to what thing it refers, seems to be extremely rarely dealt with like that (Probably because of how it is, like the word "the", close to the root of thinking). And the Constitution itself seems to contain so much dependencies on the word "of" being taken much closer to that level than the technicality I insisted on. I actually began questioning my way starting from the Constitution itself after noticing how "a Citizen of the United States" in  Article 1 Section 2, according to the level of technicality I am looking for, is open to mean a citizenship from a different country even though it is probably never occurs to anyone to be understood that way. That quoted part was for two things at the same existing level environment-wise. Here on the other hand, first we have the capitalization of the word "State" indicating that the target reference should be taken as one single thing. And unlike the people themselves, security of the people of the State is not  part of the definition of a State. Then on top of that we have the outer environment brought to focus by describing the State as free there. 

In addition to all that we do not just have "security of a free State" but "the security of a free State". On the other hand, in the quoted part above, for example, the indefinite article was used. That part could have been written as one of the Citizens of the United States. 

Let's now get back to compare the theory for the indefinite article that was presented here with  the common grammer.

First,  we can see how this going back to the shared abstract root explains why words like, for example, "some" is not considered an indefinite article and why indefinite articles cannot be used with more than one instance of a common noun. Otherwise, if we take common nouns directly at the instance level then what prevents the ambiguity of the indefinite article from getting applied to more than one instance? And even at just the individual things level, what prevents words like "any", or "one" as pronoun, from being included in the indefinite Article designation of the English language if indefiniteness is about referring to instances of common nouns directly? The common English grammar also does not explain why the word "one" as adjective does not need an indefinite article. 

And although the abstract theory here can stand on its own without the justification for the need for indefinite article, that was presented at the beginning here, that explanation fits  dedicating the indefinite article to only countable things, and I cannot see any other solution for that multiplicity problem except through this abstract theory.    

One can also see how the theory here fits various depth usage of the indefinite article in comparison with the usage of the word "any" . For example, a person may say I need a chair.. any chair. On the other hand, a person may say to people focussing on solving some problem I have an idea, not I have any idea to bring attention to what that person wants to suggest with regard to solving that problem. Viewing a thing through its abstract root, as suggested by the abstract theory here, is what opens the door for this dual capability for the indefinite article to be similar or contrasted against the word "any" like this, by enabling the choice for focussing on the root to emphasise quality, or focussing on the instance extended from that root to emphasise commonality.

Like it is pointed out at the beginning of the discussion here, if both definiteness and indefiniteness are based on being known or unknown at the instance level, then why do we need both? Why is it that the absence of the definite article from a noun phrase does not imply indefiniteness? Actually, that is the way things work in my native language. In Arabic there is only the equivalent of the definite article. A word for word translation for, for example, the incorrect sentence Man went to big garden is correct in Arabic and equivalent to A Man went to a big garden, except that "big garden" becomes "garden big" there. I was surprised to find that instead of seeing it just a way to pronounce indefinite nouns, some linguists apparently take the short vowel of the تنوين type, that often comes with  common nouns when they come without the the equivalent in use to definite article in English, as maker of indefiniteness like the indefinite Article in English. But there is no Arabic grammar book stating تنوين as indefinite Article like the English grammar books state "a/an" as the indefinite Article. In addition, unlike the English language, that same thing also comes with plural and uncountable things. For example it comes with nouns like "water" and "justice". A word for word translation to Arabic for, for example, This is not justice (except for omitting the secondary verb because there is no such a requirement there) would also have the word "justice" take the تنوين. Even proper nouns there would take that تنوين unless they belong to a class of words described as ممنوع من الصرف. On the other hand تنوين never comes with a word preceded by the Arabic designation that is equivalent in use to the definite article in English. 

We also should not miss that the definiteness and indefiniteness is explained in the English language at the root in terms of the Articles themselves not the noun phrase they may come with. The etymology of the word "Article" takes it back to mean  a Joint. Also every other meaning  in the dictionaries is far from suggesting being a seperate meaning. Instead those other meanings fit better as applications of that original meaning. Like those other meanings, here also things fit very reasonably with the word "Article" means "Joint". A Joint is where branching to other things occur, and that is all what we need to support the theory that the indefinite references in the English language go through the abstract version of the common noun which its instance(s) is/are the intended target. Because we can see that our Joints here, depending on their type, can lead us to an identity, and therefore we call that Joint, definite, or  lead us to no identity and therefore we call that Joint, indefinite.  In other words, the burden is on the opposing side to prove that there is for our Joints here any other related thing beyond the role like the basic role of a pointer or a container. Describing a Pointer or a Container according to the general basic role of a Pointer or a Container involves nothing more than if they point at or contain something or not. For the indefinite Article the only way to being indefinite but still end up pointing at one instance of something is to point at the abstract version of that thing. 

Related to the argument above, we see that in the grammar books, or at least the older ones, "the" and "a/an" are called "Articles". Although in those books those words are sometimes also called "articles", there is no conflict here because the singularity is also one of the possible meanings of that. What gives even more support to this  is how it seems that the capitalized forms are closer to the core introduction and explanation for the topic of definiteness and indefiniteness in the language.The capitalization of the word "Article" requires it to be taken as one single thing. Therefore it cannot exist just as a description to its content without its main role, like for example the word "dish" as in saying That sheff made delicious dishes.  

And while the same reasons for the argument above would have existed even if the English Articles were called through names that include words other than "definite" and "indefinite", doesn't the argument above fits better with the use of those words than taking definiteness and indefiniteness as if they are equivalent to knowing and not knowing like how the common grammar seems to take them? Defintness is related  to existence with the capability to be known not the knowing itself. For example, one could say about a closed box There could be a definite thing there. Clearly "known" as the meaning for "definite" does not fit that if no one knows that there is something in that box. 

One more thing to point out and it is that the theory here shouldn't be taken to imply that the significance of the designation related to applying the definite or indefinite articles needs to be taken differently. The way a thing may be used or even made for is not necessarily the mechanism of how it works. 

+288 (second amendment interpretation 215: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 7)

 Picking things from after the argument for the word "the" in "the security" in the preceding post, I do not know what made me wonder that far for something like this. The first comma preserves the abstraction of the two part clause "A well regulated Militia". Since an abstract Militia belongs to an abstract State, the test for the necessity of a well regulated Militia in the Amendment includes only what exist externally at the general environment and with the words "free" and "security" applying only externally. Clearly this test leads to the answer of no necessity for our time.

I may come back to elaborate on the core above but I did not want to postpone it for that. The same goes for the argument for the implementation versus concept for a Militia in the preceding post, which also was wrong. However, I still want to mention here that because of how the abstraction suffices by itself, it seems that the capitalization on both sides around the first comma is needed only for the same reason that was discussed before which is related to how the descriptions "well regulated" and "free" should exist as statuses not just descriptions for what is being described.

+287

 Related to the preceding post, I am not okay with the level of arguing with regard to the connection for the clauses around the first comma but I posted yesterday because I did not want a potential deadline to pass without making the best argument I can. Also it is not a bad idea to give the readers more time to think about what was made while I try to add what I think is still needed.

  

+286 (second amendment interpretation 214: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 6)

Before discussing the old issues, I want to clear the way from a potential hurdle which I did not address before because I did not think it needs that.    

Original Authority Versus Dependency On Facts

The part "being necessary to the security of a free State" should not be taken as originating from the authority of writing the Constitution instead of just being dependent on  external reality. The preamble of the document we are dealing with here enacted the rest of that document saying "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,... do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America".

The capitalization of the word "Constitution" there implies that it exists as one single thing. But the order of words of any document is also part of that document. This  precedence among the words of a document, which are themselves parts of the document, also implies that they precede that document in existence. Therefore, parts of the Constitution that uses the authority of the Constitution would need to be referred to through their future existence. 

The right of the people

 This is not needed for the purpose of the Second Amendment argument here. That is because it is about how the part before the second comma does not fit our time when applied. Reaching that conclusion disables the whole part after that comma which contains that right reference. Nevertheless, I still want to point out that because of the reason  above, the reference to the right of the people,  here,  does not establish a right from the authority of the Constitution. And neither does any of the other "right" reference that did not come through their future existence.  

It fits this dependance on reality to see how all the "right" mentionings without future reference, in the Bill of Rights, like, for example, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, are common sense rights. On the other hand what is more open for being disputed or considered privileges, like having a speedy and public trial and Assistance of a Counsel, were affirmatively established with a future reference using the phrase "shall enjoy". 

There are also two special supports in the Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the argument being made here. The first of those is, again, related to the Sixth Amendment. It starts with "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ..". Although the rights mentioned there must exist for any accused because they are referred to through their future existence, they are still dependant on the part preceding them "the accused".  The accused was not referred to through its existence in the future and therefore its existence depends  on reality and does not come from the authority of the constitution. That makes the Amendment fits situations where a criminal prosecution does not bring a person to be the accused. 

Taking things this way also explains the issue of the $20 value in the Seventh Amendment. The Amendment first Says:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,  

Unlike "shall enjoy the right" in the Sixth Amendment the right of trial by jury was not referred to within future content and therefore it preceded the authority of the constitution in existence and therefore it is a reference that depends on reality. 

Now lets continue with the rest of the Amendment, which states: 

and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law 

Common law is the rulings of the courts. Of course, those rulings should be rooted at some thinking the courts believed to be correct. Had the phrase "common law" been capitalized, it would have referred to one single thing. That single thing is the end result extending from a snapshot of the thinking root that made it. In that situation we would be forced to select from among specific known common law systems of ruling results and do what can lead to how this amendment was interpreted here as referring to the common law of England at the time of making the amendment. But with the uncapitalized reference we have, the thinking on which the common law ruling result was based can be seen having individual existence on its own and therefore it can lead to different ruling. If that happens, what deserves more to be called "the common law" here, the ruling that has the support of what common law should come from or the one that lost that connection?    

So, contrary to the way this has been taken, here we see another example of not forcing a thing but depending on reality with regard to what should be done.

Starting And Finishing the constitution     

Just after the preamble, the Constitution starts with:

"Article I  Section 1"

This enumeration is needed because if the document has the authority only as one single thing instead of having every component that composes it has its own individual authority from the start, we need something to signal its start to us.

For that same reason we also have the "done in Convention.." signaling the end of the document to us. Otherwise, since it must be taken as one single thing, it could be argued that the document is not finished and therefore it does not have authority.

This singularity concept seems to be the root reason why  generally legal documents can incorporate new things only through being amended regardless of how those new things may not affect the already existing things.       

Back to the Constitution where we next see:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

What a strange way to start? Why didn't it start directly from what needs to be constructed here, and why did it need to point out that those  legislative Powers belong to the Congress even though it also did that indirectly at subsequent parts of the constitution when it assigned those powers to components of the Congress? But we can see justification for all that when we consider the singularity of this document. Since this singularity implies that referring to things through other than their future existences makes the existences of those things dependant on reality, one needs to as much as possible make those references about undisputable existences, in order to set a sure starting point for the constituting action here. Had the above started with, for example, "A Congress of the United States Shall have..." then the part "A Congress of the United States", would lack reality enforcement for the fact that it exists and that in turn would disable the "shall" part because the latter depends on the former. Therefore it makes sense to set the start here using something its existence is as indisputable as what existed in the document being made itself. On the other hand we see that, having set a starting point, both the executive and the judicial Powers establishing sections started with constructing what those section where about constructing.         

Now, lets get to our existing issues, starting from citing the text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Amendment refers to "the security" not just "security". Therefore the only way for that to represent not just some special value but any value of security is through having the word "security" inclusive to all values of security. In that case the only role for the word "the" preceding it seems to be  to distinguish security as an attribute. But if so then capitalizing the word "security" to make it treated as one single thing seems a better fit. On the other hand with no capitalization we have the domain of selection for applying the significance of the word "the" open to be focussed on only parts of that security even if we have the word "security" in its most inclusive sense. 

Also, using the description "necessary" does not seem to fit the situation here if  it is just necessity to the security instead of necessity to the security for the sake of the State. But having "the security" about special value of security seems fit that much better.

It is a risky thing trying to argue the interpretation of something as close to the root of thinking as the designation the word "the" adds to things. Actually, in the argument just made itself not only there are designations provided by the word "the", but also the word "value" was used at some sub levels to include in its meaning the kind or type of things, even though the purpose of the main discussion is whether it is the value or the type being designated using the word "the" in "the security". 

 Now lets continue to the rest. 

The first comma has no other potential use here other than blocking the part preceding it from reaching the part following it.  The comma has a role there only because of the external connection (as a blocker) to the next clause. Therefore, what the "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to is:

1- The part preceding the comma, which is the well regulated Militia.

2- The comma itself as a blocker for that Militia 

3-  The concept that was manifested through that well regulated Militia. That concept exist because having the word "Militia" capitalized means that it refers to one single thing. This implies that there is a concept that fitted this singularity.

 In other words, what the "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to is the concept of a well regulated that is being blocked.

As it is mentioned in the previous post of this argument, the capitalization of the word "State" makes it refer to one single thing and therefore the word "free" in "free State" does not apply to the parts or components of the State because they do not have individual existences as things on their own. However, even though I still argue that the word security should be also applied only externally, unlike my position in that argument, I no longer base that on the reason just mentioned. Instead I replace that with these two reasons:

The first one is the focus of "the security" and that is the state while being free in the world, not just the state. Moreover it referred to the state as one single thing and that as mentioned above prevented the word free from applying to the components of the State. So how dose not applying freedom internally but still seek to apply security internally fits with referring to that security as "the security"?

However what I want to be the main argument for why the word "security" does not apply on the components or parts of the State as individual things on their own is the blocking of the concept manifestations that belongs to every State. That is because the need for internal security implies dealing with those blocked manifestations.

The same argument just mentioned above also applies to why when applying the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part we should take into consideration only the external environment. In other words, it applies without taking into account any specifics related to the free State in question other than its existence as one single free thing. Because if we do we would be dealing with manifestations of the concept for specific States, and all those are blocked by the comma. 

However, even though the blocking of all manifestations make things that much about the external environment, we still need the capitalization of the word "State". That is because without the singularity implied through that capitalization  there would be no separation between internal and external environment of a state since its component can also be parts of the external world when viewed as things on their own.  

So now what is the concept of a Militia? The court says in its Heller opinion 

"But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

With a scope of enrollment like that, our argument here applies directly. But if the view being taken is that the Militia may not need to include all that range at all times then there must be some measure allowing stopping the grouping at some level and not going to the next. That measure is to build the needed force for the security of a nation mainely from accumulation of fighting power of individual people. Modern militaries also employ ground forces but do not do that for accumulating their individual fighting powers as the main power. 

Militia: Concept vs Implementation

I wonder how much of this same question was applied to other issue. In other words, how common is it to question, wherever applicable, the definition of anything at that time for whether it is just for what that thing is in general or if that definition is just about the implementations available at that time for what is at its root a more open concept. 

Nevertheless, aside from the support of circumstantial evidences and signs, and the question of who carries the burden of proof here, it turned out that the makers of the Amendment included an answer for this too, despite how taking care of future changes for definitions of things may seem an unrealistic expectation.      

The argument here begins with pointing out that taking the part before the second comma as a test rule should not be seen as synonymus with taking it as originating from a neutral point in time. Not only taking the latter position needs to carry the burden of proof, but we have many signs showing how careful attention was given not to make the constitution speaks out of its point in time. For example "who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years" or "who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen" and from the Bill of Rights "wherein the crime shall have been committed" or "which district shall have been previously ascertained by law" or "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars".  So "being" here should be taken as a referring to only that point in time. That makes the "a well regulated Militia" part with its blocking by the comma about that time. Like the earlier part of this argument, here again, we see the importance of referring to the concept of a well regulated Militia not directly but through  a blocked well regulated Militia. Using that here we can say that the "being" makes the reference to the Militia according to how a Militia exists at that time regardless of the generality behind the concept of a Militia. Had the reference to the concept of a well regulated Militia being made directly, the concept would have been open to its whole generality including implementations not possible at that time.

+285: Two Decisions

I have decided to work on my Second Amendment argument on my own time instead of seeking fulfilment of that deadline. And in order to avoid confusing situations like the past I no longer intend to keep that weekly news check I kept doing.

+284 (second amendment interpretation 213: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 5: Corrections And Improvements)

First, although there is no shortage of other examples from the constitution supporting the general singularity view  for capitalization of common nouns, my army example  probably was not a very good choice. That is because having the action of soldiers entering into a city based on orders from the leadership of their government could bring the focus on attributing the action to the government and through that to that State because of representation, like how I once before argued for treating  a State as one whole thing, not the coherency of the group. A better choice would have used for example the coherency of a family. One for example could say that a family entered into an area if one of its adult members enter into that area with the knowledge of the others.

Having gotten that out of the way, now lets get to more essential improvements. 

First, one may need to pay attention to that the first comma was necessary to affect essential change to the text. It is not like it was inserted just to add some text, like in:

A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

In that case it seems like it could be argued that the commas around "composed of the body of the people" are just for introducing an unnecessary description.

Instead, the first comma we actually have blocks the subject  ("A well regulated Militia" ) of the whole clause preceding  the second comma from reaching the predicate ("being necessary to the security of a free State") of that whole clause.  

Since the latter still refers to the former, that reference must be to the former as the concept from which the blocked manifestation was originated. 

Now, lets improve the argument related to the use of the reference to "a well regulated Militia" as a concept only in "being necessary to the security of a free State".

The core of this additional argument is related to the scope of the word "the". The core role of that word is at the most general environment at which the concept of a well regulated Militia exists, not at individual cases of free States. 

Lets take an example here. The one I thought about is related to the cooking of a person. A person may say:

I have salt in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.

This is less similar to our situation here than having a  grocery store manager saying:

I have salt on the shelves because it is necessary to the cooking of a person.

And while a person who needs food with lower sodium may say:

I have salt-substitute in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.

The grocery store manager may say:

I do not have salt-substitute on the shelves because it is not necessary to the cooking of a person.

So although the grocery store manager may take into account what the word "the" may designate in different individual cases, that word ultimately applies according to the level of the general environment of the grocery store in its relation to a potential cooking of a person (Yes, in actual grocery stores definition of necessity at that general level may be merely about common actual use of the product.  But if we imagine that grocery store belonging to the government because of law requirement to "supply what is necessary to the cooking of a person" then evaluating necessity at the grocery store level may begin from the capabilities the environment offers).    

Dealing with things this way may happen everywhere decisions gets made at a large scale. One thing that readily comes to mind here is the decision making at a government level.

And if it seems startling in our case to consider at the general level that a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State, because different low probabilities still exist, one needs to consider that a similar thing also  done at the individual level in how the word "the" designates some special value of security protection, except that the other possibilities in the general level may belong to different states.   

By the way, the issue of comparing ground troops to a well regulated Militia is a good example for how the first comma changes things with its focus on fitting the need to the concept of a well regulated Militia not the manifestation of that concept. Without that comma the need for ground troops by almost any military would have fitted the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part because military ground troops fits being a well regulated Militia.

+283 (second amendment interpretation 212: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 4: Better "concept" Argument )

Instead of the way I argued for that "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to the well regulated Militia as concept only, in the section titled Connecting Through The First Comma, couldn't I just said this:

The reference to a well regulated Militia at the beginning fits any well regulated Militia but the first comma blocks that reference from connecting to the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part following it. However the latter still try to refer to the former. This leads to that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part refers to a well regulated Militia from the closest possible point which is its concept root. 

+282 (second amendment interpretation 211: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 3: I Noticed This 2 )

Something has been pinching me about using the word "actual", and I just noticed that I probably should have focussed on the difference between a well regulated Militia as an instance and as a concept, not as an actual and as a concept.  

+281 (second amendment interpretation 210: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 2: I Noticed This1 )

Since the preceding post is long, I intend not to change it even within the 24 hours I usually give myself after posting and instead point out potential issues to be corrected  in separate posts like this one.

Anyway, this is a series I call "I Noticed This" to point out that I recognized a potential issue and intend to work on it

This first one is related to the "Connecting Through The First Comma" part and is related to how I might have contradicted myself when I refused to count in the concept in the actual thing when it comes to affecting the next part but I counted it in as a reason to prevent that actual part from surviving the first comma.

Also, without the first comma the part of the Amendment before the second comma would probably be just a reference to an actual well regulated Militia not either just concept or an actual one like I said. 

+280 (second amendment interpretation 209: Argument For The Whole Amendment )

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Two Parts And The Continuous Validity Requirement

Let's start with the usual way of separating the Amendment into two parts around the second comma. There we see that the part before the second comma has its own independent existence from the part after the second comma, unlike if, for example, it were part of a "because" statement. Therefore there is no question that its validity is required for each execution of the part after the second comma. But since the execution related to the latter requires just abstaining from doing somethings, it may be seen as just one execution and therefore requires the part before the second comma to be valid just once. 

The comma before "shall not be infringed" (the last/third comma) provides the solution for the issue above. It divides the result that would occur if the condition before the second comma is true, from a one stage result to a two stage result. The first of those two stages asks if the right of the people to keep and bear Arms exists, while the second stage applies the condition that that right should not be infringed.                

Or, we could say that the third comma takes away the part between itself and the second comma from being part of the execution that would occur if the condition before the second comma is true. It instead separates that part as belonging to neither the condition nor the result, but just something on which or related to which the execution occurs if the condition before the second comma is true.                 

Regardless of which view is prefered, the condition before the second comma must continue to be true in order to make the part between the second and third commas continues to have the condition that it should not be infringed applied on it.   

Capitalization of Common Nouns

We know that common nouns that come attached to proper nouns should also be capitalized (For example Everest Mountain, not Everest mountain). Therefore the effect of capitalizing common nouns like the words "state" or "militia", is that it makes them refer to all proper nouns targets of that type. Since any instance of a common noun can be called by a proper noun, capitalizing common nouns makes them refer to their instances in proper noun target forms.    

The definition of a proper noun states that it refers to a "single" thing. Not only arguing for restricting this singularity carries the burden of  proof here, but this general singularity is also, by far, the reasonably applicable one. Otherwise, we run into problems in identifying the class of things to which a proper noun target belongs and how much that can differ from one perception to another.

This general singularity implies that the components comprising  a proper noun target do not have existences as individual things. 

Even if the word "State" is taken to refer only to states in this union, that does not take away the validity of applying the conclusion above on this word. It is not the capitalization of that word that may make it limited in its reference to only the States in this union but the environment where that reference is used. If for example the manager of a restaurant or cafe or theater instructs his employees that "No Chair shall be left unstable", it would be understood that that instruction is about the Chairs in that place. However it would be also understood that that instruction also prevents bringing unstable Chairs from the outside to that place and keeping them in that condition.

The effect of capitalizing any noun on that noun is the same wherever that noun is mentioned in the constitution including its amendments. Not only that understanding should fit all capitalizations in the constitution but it is also very probable that without it there would be big troubles in numerous parts of the constitution and this could be a severe understatement. Let us take a tiny sample of that in just the word "House" in Section 5. How would that section work if the capitalization of that word does not make it taken as one single thing? If House is not taken as a single thing and therefore each of its members has its own individual existence, then for it to be "the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" or "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" would require each member, by itself, to have those qualities. If so then nothing will be done without 100 percent agreement on those things. It is the singularity provided through the capitalization of the word "house" what makes the collective view here the only path.

 Now, let's see how the word "State" itself was applied in the constitution at what appears to be the most suitable part for this purpose, Article 1 Section 10. 

Let's start with "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.."

Without the general singularity understanding, those parts would also apply to the people. In other words, it would be for example unconstitutional for a person who is a factory owner in one State to be in an agreement with a supplier person in another State, for raw materials it needs. That is because their States would also be considered to have entered into that Agreement. Because it is good enough for a thing with  components having their own individual existences to be into another thing if only one of its components is completely inside that other thing. For example, people may say that an army entered into a city if for example some of its soldiers enter into the city (Yes, more than one soldier may be required in this example in order not to see the action being done at mere personal capacity but that is not an issue for our case here). People may also say that an army entered into two different places at the same time and that cannot happen if all the army is required for both places.

On the other hand, with the general singularity understanding, one can see how the capitalization, not just from one end but from both sides (the State side and the Treaty, Alliance, Confederation, Agreement sides)  prevents that from happening. 

Now what if there were also this statement in the constitution: "No State shall plant a palm tree"? would that apply also on the people there or just on the State as a single thing? The answer is that it would not apply on the people of the State directly but it would lead to the same result through imposing that requirement on the State. On the other hand people inside a free State would not be under having the being free requirement imposed on them because of imposing it on the State, because a State can be free as one single thing in the world without its components being free inside.

Now let's continue with Article 1 Section 10 taking 

"No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"

Without the singularity view, wherever the forbidden produced thing is not by definition something only a government can do, those restrictions seem to flow down to the components of the State as things with their own individual existences and therefore apply also on the people of a State. On the other hand, with the singularity view, they are not. That is because all those restricted actions contain as part of them a reference to the identity of their doers. For example, Bills of Credit include the issuer of those Bills and Debts are assigned to a debtee. Therefore such restrictions will not be imposed on people when imposed on the State because those actions are not the same actions when done by the people of the State, unlike how planting a palm tree has no connection in its essence to the planter of the tree.

Related to the word "state" one can also get into its not capitalized occurrences in the Twelfth Amendment.  

Continuity and The Word "being"

If I say Children are playing in this street then, technically, it can be assumed that children are still playing in the street, based on only the information provided in that statement. But with Children playing in this street, as in Children playing in this street, drivers should be careful  The first part now conveys just a snapshot of the action without continuity in the part itself. Instead there will be only the continuity related to the assumption that things stay the same way until proven otherwise.

The same is true with "being necessary to the security of a free State" here. There is no continuity from the authority of the constitution beyond the duration of "being".  After that period (or point in time), continuity comes from assuming that a thing stays at its status until we know otherwise from reality. 

Dealing With The Affirmation of Facts

As pointed out above, the direct authority of the constitution related to the affirmation of facts in " being  necessary to the security of a free State" no longer exist but instead what exist is the assumption of the continuity of that status until it is proven otherwise by reality and facts . However, the test for reality change still depends on what was meant by what was said. In dealing with the meaning of what was said it is very essential to avoid an unbalanced approach resulting from a partial view. There are multiple affirmations in that part of the Amendment, not just the usual take out fact, and we must walk the line there. This approach was applied in the discussion below  

  

The Word "the" in "the security"

It is important to give that word sufficient attention. It should be taken the same way it would have if the constitution were to say "Do only what is necessary to the security of your free State". How much that word designates a special value and not there just to highlight security in general is the same in both situations. 

The word "security" here is not capitalized and therefore it is not a single thing and therefore each of its parts has its own  individual existence. That means for the necessity description to apply it must be necessary to every part of the security that can be separated from "the security" and it will remain a security. Therefore "the security" in the assumed statement above cannot be a subset of "the security" mentioned in the Amendment, and vice versa.

But what if the makers of the Amendment saw necessity status there for what we consider unnecessary or vice versa? The answer is that we are not free to take additional precaution by going deeper into that side on our own without facts calling for such action. We do not have extra margin safety on the necessity description  here. That is because with the affirmation of necessity as a description also comes an implied affirmation for the existence of necessity as a concept that was used in measuring the fitting of necessity as a description and we are obligated to follow how the facts guide us between those two affirmations.

    Connecting Through The First Comma 

We start with a reference to a well regulated Militia. We do not know at this stage if that reference is to an actual or just the concept of a well regulated Militia.

Then we reach the first comma which separates that part from the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part following it. However, the latter still refers to that beginning part. But the comma separation is a text separation and not necessarily a meaning separation. In other words, with multiple potential meanings, as in this case, there is a copy of the text for each additional meaning and the comma is required to exist in only one of them. Therefore, one of those two potential meanings related to concept and actuality for the well regulated Militia at the beginning, may pass through that first comma. Since the concept of a well regulated Militia can exist without actual well regulated Militia but the other way around cannot be, the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part refers to the well regulated Militia mentioned at the beginning of the Amendment, only as a concept.

The capitalization of the word "militia" prevents the concept of a well regulated Militia, that comes as part of an actual well regulated Militia from being applicable to the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part, because it is there just as a component of the actual well regulated Militia and does not have its own individual existence. In other words, the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part not only refers to necessity of the concept of a well regulated Militia but also for that necessity to be through the level of a mere concept. The Amendment made  judging the validity of the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part neither dependent on one  actual free State nor on the general condition as indicated by the application on all actual free States. Instead it made the validity of that part dependent on necessity stemming from the concept of a well regulated Militia in its interaction with the general condition at the level in which the concept was made, and therefore actuality of the States does not matter. One can take the position that no State can be totally free and therefore no free State exist, and it would not affect the application of that part of the Amendment.    

 Development History

The first draft of the Amendment used the word "country".  Then, although the word "state" never used in a not capitalized form anywhere in the constitution before, here it remained not capitalized throughout all earlier versions. Then in the final version it came capitalized along with the word "militia" which was also kept not capitalized throughout all earlier versions. We also have all those military service exclusion for the religiously scrupulous.  

One can see through that how the external security for the whole union as one single thing in the world was the  main focus or at least had strong roots from the start and continued to be throughout the development of the Amendment with the final version representing  just a different way of implementing the same purpose. The word "country" seems to be the closest to mind when one thinks about freedom relative to the external world. But a country does not have a government, without statehood. This absence of government makes freedom as a single entity in the world meaningless because of the lack of representation. Therefore  replacing that word with the word "state" is necessary. Then we see how all that use of the word "state" not in capitalized form suggests intentional avoidance for capitalizing that word. That in turn suggests trying to avoid suggesting that the States in the union as individual units are the aim. Then we have that clear connection of the issue of external security with military service.  

Related to the conditional nature of the part before the second comma, we see how the first version was flipped from a semicolon separated execution and explanation form to the form of an execution dependant on a seperate reason preceding it, then remained in that form to the final version. 

We also see all the insistence on using the word "being" through out all versions. This support a technical intention behind the use of this word not an artistic one.

Also all the references to "the best security" supports that the word "the" in "the security" in the final version is designating a special value of security. 

Bringing The Pieces Together

The word "the" in "the security" is about answering this question in relation to the Amendment:

How should be that thing for which a well regulated Militia was seen as necessary?

It is not about answering this question in relation to the Amendment:

 What is that thing for which a well regulated Militia was seen as necessary?

So while keeping this role for the word "the" in the use of "the security" here in mind, one may ask: Is the concept of a well regulated Militia still calls for a well regulated Militia as necessary to the security of a free State?

Capitalizing the word "state" in the Amendment makes it one single thing and therefore its components do not exist as individual things and therefore the words "free" and "security" cannot apply on them. Therefore the question above becomes about freedom and security only in relation to the outside world not among the components of a free State.

Clearly the concept or part of the concept of a Militia is that it is the power of a State through some of its people as individual fighters. This directly relates to how combining the fighting power of individual fighters was the main way to bring a better power, to the level that no State with no outside entity on which that State can count for defending itself, because of being free, can risk not to have its own form of it. But that way of building power is now extremely ineffective and replaceable with much better things, because of the wide spread of modern war machinery.

Also the "well regulated Militia" cannot be considered here for the role of supplying the Military of a State with people because a Militia does not have to be well regulated for that. The "well regulated" description of the Militia must be necessary to the security of a free State in order for a well regulated Militia to be necessary to the security of a free State. Because whether in a manifested form or not, the well regulated description must exist somewhere. If it does not exist outside what a Militia is, then it must exist inside what a Militia is and that cannot happen because it would mean that that Militia is not one single thing as indicated by the capitalization of the word.

Like the case above, I cannot think of any other secondary role for the Militia here that needs it to be well regulated. 

Related to the definition of the word "Militia", it seems like  there is a big support in history that a Militia is comprised of only people. For example the earlier versions of this Amendment described it as "composed of the body of the people". Or the quote of George Mason saying  "who are the militia..They consist now of the whole people". However, if some argue that was just the implementation of that time, then they carry the burden of proof for that. Moreover, what prevented something written with consideration for the future like a constitution from having a more open view beyond having the right to keep and bear, not even arms but Arms to individuals as did the Amendment we are discussing? In addition, there is this interesting thing from the Samuel Johnson Dictionary. It defines "MILITIA" as "The trainbands; the standing force of a nation" and defines  "TRAINBANDS" as " The militia; the part of a community trained to martial exercise".  First, we see how that suggest strong support to that a Militia is composed of only people. Second we see how in both definitions the arrangement of putting the form first does not fit well with the form being just an implementation.       

+279

Related to the preceding post, I plan to finish by May 31. I could have continued to the finish line when I was posting in February, on my own, or had I taken potential signals I received as being related to a deadline instead of just a positive side (this is also one of the to whom it may concern posts).   

+278

Finishing with the Second Amendment is now the main thing I am trying to do. So nobody needs to worry for me with regard to that. 

+277: Gun Right And This Virus Situation

One good thing for arguing against having a right to keep and bear Arms when it no longer officially considered obligated by the constitution, is to question the wisdom of giving that right, despite how one is completely dependent on others good use of it and the sever consequences if things go otherwise, in comparison with all those business closing and stay at home advises or requirement for this virus situation despite how one has much more power in his hands on protecting himself and the much less sever potential if things go wrong.      

+276 (second amendment interpretation 208: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts - 2 )

Similarly in the "doctor" example of post +267, when technically arguing the role of capitalization, instead of saying that it makes being at the role of a medical doctor necessary, one can say that it prevents the description of the role (we can strip the role as much as we like then change it to a role and a description because even mere presence is a role) component of that word from being taken to be about the person component and therefore the description that a doctor is someone who treats people must be needed, to make the need for a Doctor. 

+275 (second amendment interpretation 207: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts)

I think that I got confused there and did not need the talk about the distinction between status and description I tried to make. Proving  the necessity of  "well regulated" as a description is good enough for the start of my argument. Then, from there, one can say that if this description has no necessary use in the environment then it is unnecessary and that makes the well regulated Militia unnecessary which makes the Militia unnecessary, because the capitalization of the word "militia" applies the well regulated description on the militia directly. In other words, because of the capitalization of the word "militia" one cannot say that  a militia is a group of people and therefore a well regulated militia means a well regulated group of people and therefore  not necessarily well regulated group at some role that group is required to take and therefore the necessity condition of the amendment applies on any militia. Capitalization of the word "militia" prevents that path because it does not allow individual existences for the components of a Militia. Therefore, the group component cannot cancel how it should carry a role it is required to take, by taking the  description of that role and making that description a description of itself (I took the role here as a description of the group but if one takes it as something requiring action then the process just described would need to be applied on the role itself first).        

+274 (second amendment interpretation 206: Another Argument For Capitalized References- 3: A Citation Support ))

While today's grammar text may not be so careful, this is how this grammar book from 1767 titled "A grammar of the English language" by William Ward, explains proper and common nouns on page 19 (After complementing Google on enabling direct copying of the text, below, I noticed that it is not an exact copy. But it is still good enough for my purpose here):

Noun Substantives are of two Sorts, the Proper, and the Common or Appellative. 

Noun Substantives proper are more usually called Proper Names; being intended each to express one single individual Object to which the Name is appropriated ; as, John N—, Mary M , London, Paris, Greece, Italy. The Thames, The Seine, Sec. 

Common or Appellative Substantives are Names, each of which is common to every Object of a whole Class or Species; as a Man, is a Name common to every Man ; and so of other Instances. 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=SsQDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA19

(Despite how the text looks like it was just scanned, I was surprised to see that google enables direct copying of the text. Maybe I need to try the same elsewhere before thinking that I would need to copy the text typing)

One can notice how the definition for  proper noun is worded in a subjective sense in the use of the word "intended" and the word "appropriated" while the definition for common nouns expressed things in a more direct form.

Also, like it was mentioned in the earlier talk about "well regulated Militia" here, the capitalization of the word "object" in "individual Object" requires the reference target of that word to be used directly not through seeing it meant an instance of a class. Of course, this is mentioned here to add supporting fit and not for direct support for my capitalized reference argument which I put closer to the root.  
(Never mind the change of text color in my posts. Google's editor seems to have its own mind)