"being" is about being- 2: An Essential Distinction

I think that one thing that could impede understanding the potential significance of current time dependence or reference in "being" as used in the second amendment comes from not sufficiently distinguishing between two different things and confusing them as one. These two different things are:

1- The expression made in the second amendment in relation to the necessity of the militia:

I have no argument against the claim that expression was intended to apply on all time and the "being" argument I have been trying to make has nothing to do with that.

2- The expression made in the second amendment in relation to the EVALUATION for the necessity of the militia:

Here is the place of this "being" argument. The "being" ,as used in the second amendment, significantly suggests intentionally showing that although the expression related to the necessity of the militia could have been intended to apply on all time, the evaluation because of which that was made was intended to apply on that time.  [(Added 2/2/2014) one may express that last part better in this way: The "being" ,as used in the second amendment, significantly suggests intentionally declaring that, although the expression related to the necessity of the militia could have been intended to apply on all time, the evaluation FOR which that was made was made to what existed at that time.] [(Added 2/4/2014) that may be expressed better as:
The "being" ,as used in the second amendment, significantly suggests intentionally declaring that, although the expression related to the necessity of the militia could have been intended to apply on all time, the evaluation  because of which that was made was made FOR what existed at that time.]