Not related to the main purpose of this blog

You want to assign some color or anything else to a cause you care about then that is your business. Otherwise I don't have a special affinity to any color and never had. Things started when a color was assigned to me and assumed to be my favorite because someone watched me put more effort to buy something in that color which is a discriminating action in itself because it did not take account for the normal human sophistication in that one may like something in one color and another in a different one. 

Position of the operative clause

If the operative clause of the second amendment was intended to always apply why bring it second instead of first? Why this form?

In demands or orders that can be expressed with short sentences and those for the do and don'ts as what a constitution is for, isn't it stronger and more expressive to put the demand or order first in the sentence or paragraph if the demand or order is always valid? That what seems to be generally the preferred path of stating always valid orders and demands in order to bring to focus the main purpose of executing things by stating what needs to be done.Why would one waste that and instead confuse things by stating first an explanation that always leads to the same end result for a text intended mainly for executing things like a constitution? What kind of execution or action is expected from an explanation that leads to a fixed result like that? In a text intended for execution, what could be missed if an explanation that always leads to the same fixed end result is not stated before the executable part of that text that otherwise could serve the purpose better if stated first?

In addition, assuming interpretations limiting or restricting the operative clause based on what came before it , like what I  argue for, were not intended by those who made the second amendment, they are still not all far fetched for them to be seen as things the thought of which did not occur to those who made the amendment. Starting with the executable part at the beginning would have greatly helped in excluding those interpretation because it would much more strongly suggests that the execution is not dependent on a condition. In other words, if the intention was for the part before the operative clause not to limit or restrict the operative clause then that intention could have been conveyed much better and with much less confusion by starting with the generality of the operative clause (or whatever equivalent to it) first and that part (or whatever equivalent to it ) second.   

[(Added 2/19/2014)  One could also ask this question: 
What end result action reading the entire second amendment shows as required to be done (or not done) and for which the amendment was made? It is the action described in the operative clause. 

Now, if you believe that the part before the operative clause do not affect the execution of the action in the clause then the end result action shown by reading the whole amendment and that by reading just the operative clause would be the same. Also, since the part before the operative clause do not affect the action in the clause, it does not need to be stated before the clause and knowledge of what was stated in that part do not need to impede the strength of stating what is in the operative clause and can be postponed to after the clause. So why would one weaken the strength of stating what is required to be done by making it flow through the part before the clause to the end of the amendment if it can be stated with more strength by simply positioning it first?Another avoidance of worse situation and gain of better one that comes with positioning what was stated in the operative part first and what was stated before it second comes from better avoidance of limiting or restricting interpretations,like the one I argue for, through better support for the generality of what is stated in both clauses with this arrangement]   


Why wasn't the second amendment arranged like this?

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

Or this?

    People shall always have the right to keep and bear Arms                 because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security
    of a free State. 

Or simply reversing the first and second part of the form cited by the court as equivalent to the amendment like this?

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. 

 (It is not reasonable to understand in that the infringement is because the militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Also, if an opposing argument claim that was intentionally avoided then that level of avoiding misunderstanding could also be put for use against the opposing interpretation of the amendment)      

There are probably many other potential alternatives that can achieve the same purpose.

On the other hand,starting with the explanation,especially with its "being" form, then moving to the operative clause fits strongly with the intention of reasoning and giving the reader a measurement device to use. Seen through that understanding, the whole amendment from beginning to end shows an execution path to be followed starting from the reasoning path that should be followed to the application of the operative clause and that fits much better with the main purpose of a constitution in stating what needs to be executed and the do and don'ts of things. Arranging the second amendment the way it is allows selecting the path that would cause the executable part to come into effect.               

Let me be frank with you

I have maintained from considerable time ago that your acceptance and toleration of the second amendment despite how that makes no sense since the existence of weapons and army machinery of the thirties or even much earlier of past century comes from that same psychological need manifesting itself too much in this country which is finding an identity. Despite that I myself was not counting on finding anything to support my position against gun mess here in the second amendment so I did not acquaint myself with its text until probably a little over a year ago. Who would have expected that complex is not only behind surrendering and not doing anything against the situation but also the reason behind bringing the problem to begin with? So, when I read the amendment it was like a shock to me. Does it really say what it is saying and those people here still force themselves into this mess?

The part that mainly attracted my attention was the one in the middle stating "being necessary to the security of a free state". Nevertheless, I do not wish that I had read that amendment before the date of the case of District of Colombia v. Heller. Why? Because I thought so strongly the part quoted above of the amendment should have stopped the gun mess here that I thought the argument against the connection between the beginning part with the operative clause is the one I would more probably face until I read the opinion of that case which showed that I do not need to account for such possibility. But,Again ,despite having the theory I stated at the begging ,when I read the opinion of that case, only months ago, expecting to find what would reduce the shock of reading the amendment, I, instead became even more shocked with how weak it sounded to me. I could not find an answer to why the part quoted above was not understood to allow judgment based on the time in which one lives and in turn declaring that that amendment no longer fits its purpose with the weapons of our time and I am still waiting for an answer to why this clear thing was ignored.

          

"being" is about being- 8: Description not expressed through the described thing

When there is a permanent feature of something then it would usually be seen or considered as part of that thing. That is why when expressing the existence of that feature as a permanent feature of a described thing then the path of expressing that through the described thing is the most prominent one.    

 This is how the first part of the second amendment was written:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

It was not written as this:

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

If the evaluation leading to the believe of the necessity of the militia in that part of the second amendment was not for what existed at that time and the intention was to say that the militia is always necessary to the security of a free state then why wasn't it described as a feature of the described thing like in the lower example above?

In the lower example above we see that the description stating the necessity of the militia was directly attached to be expressed as part of the described thing (the militia). That did not happen with how the related part was stated in the second amendment. Although the second amendment started by mentioning the well regulated militia, the description stating the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state was not expressed through the described thing and was separated from it. Instead, that description was expressed through the status of existence using "being" then through that to the described thing.Why would one use that path if he wants to express the necessity of the militia as a permanent feature of the militia? Why the necessity of the militia was not expressed as part of the militia if it was considered a permanent feature?

"being" is about being- 7:Left to you to decide

Although I myself wrote what came in the first post of this "being" series I did not notice how this simply follow from that despite its significance. Lets start from the beginning.

It seems that we can understand the use of the word "being" as always referring to the current status of that to which it refers then it may or may not extends from that in time. But what is this actually saying? What this is saying, in other words, that the continuation (or discontinuation) of the status to which the use of "being" refers is a characteristic of the thing to which "being" refers and has nothing to do with the use of that word. Still, in other words, the word "being" in itself refers only to the current status of the thing to which it refers while the continuation of that status depends only on the type of that thing. For example,you say:

The tree,being tall,...

Or

The tea, being hot,...

In both examples above, "being" refers to only the current status of tallness or hotness while the continuation of them depends on the thing to which the status or feature referred to by "being" belongs (tree and tea).

The same thing applies to the second amendment making the using of "being" in "being necessary to the security of a free state" only referring to the current status while judging the continuation of that status or feature was left to those who follow to decide based on what is in the real world.  

                                                                                                           

"being" is about being- 6: Referring to current existence with "being"

In "the reference argument" posts I spoke about the usage of "being" to depend on the existence in the world as the decider for the existence or absence of a stated fact. Suppose that a CEO of a company told his employee to deliver a message to another company then said:

-Mr. X  is the CEO of Corporation Y, deliver this message to him.

 Or

-Mr. X ,being the CEO of Corporation Y, deliver this message to him.

Which of these two statements could make the employee pay more attention to changing facts showing that X is no longer the CEO of that corporation and deliver the message to another person instead?

It seems that one could easily point to the second statement as the answer to that.

In addition to the general usage of the word as a guidance ,it seems that one can also reason that usage.

Both of the statements above came from the same speaker and referred to same current existence in the world. So why and how

could the second one satisfy the answer to the above question more than the first? That is because the difference is in the kind of authority supporting the statement. In the first statement the speaker was using his own authority to support that X is the CEO of that corporation. In the second statement on the other hand, the speaker is showing what fit transferring that authority to the existence outside and making himself more of a medium to transfer that authority to the listener. It is similar to when an author justifies his dependence on a fact by citing a reference for it .Except that, in the case of the author there is still an a direct authority exercised by the author in selecting that reference to represent reality. In the case of that second statement (and the second amendment) on the other hand there is what fits a direct transfer of authority to the reality in the world outside.       

"being" is about being- 5:An Example

What was mentioned in #2 of this being series in relation to the difference between application time and evaluation time is not far from the talk of daily life. Suppose that your friend wants to travel to a place he does not know how to reach. You know that your friend has no access to any other way like some other person with the required knowledge or a GPS system guidance. So ,recognizing what is available, you say to your friend:

A well detailed map, being necessary to reaching your destination, you should buy one before you leave.

Although the part that your friend should buy a map before leaving would still apply whether your friend will travel the next day or the next week or month, the reasoning based on which that suggestion was made was based on what existed at the time that suggestion was made. Therefore it is clearly understood that ,despite that there was no time limit on applying the suggestion to buy a map, whenever what caused the creation of that suggestion seize to exist then that suggestion will also seize to apply. In other words, your statement was equivalent to a more efficient "if" conditional statement that lists all the things that ,in combination or individually, led to the creation of that suggestion or the absence of  the things that could have eliminated the need for making that suggestion.

"to the security" not "for the security"

Notice needs to be taken that in previous posts I mistakenly substituted "to" with "for" in the part " being necessary to the security of a free State" of the second amendment. That substitution unnecessarily wastes the better way in describing the essential level of necessity of the militia in the amendment.That has a big importance to my sufficiency argument.

   

"being" is about being- 4 : Same thing expressed differently

I did not realize what I stated in #2 of this series ("being" is about being- 2: An Essential Distinction" ) until the date I posted it.So it shouldn't be a surprise if what I wrote previously do not fit with that. But that do not represent a problem or contradiction because it is only related to the forms of expressions I used not the content. In # 2 of this "being" series things were taken closer to their basic factors to help in understanding how the general applicability of the Constitution would fit. Otherwise, one may still chooses to express that side of the significance in using "being" with less granularity by using "time" to also include what satisfied "being" at that time and say that "being necessary to the security of free state" was intended for that time only.    

Second amendment interpretation argument outline

First, let me say that in case there is an inclination to mistake this, the argument that those who made the second amendment intended to reason with us the necessity of militia, although has a relation of supporting each other with the "being" argument, like I stated in a previous post, can exist independently of that "being" argument.  

In dealing with the interpretation of the second amendment I have been trying to make the following arguments:

1- The "being" argument.
2- The intention to reason with us (instead of forcing the believe) argument.
3- The sufficiency argument.

These arguments may be made to support each other or exist independently. Support for these arguments is being made in a fragmented way through posts made on this blog.

Also, do not assume that because I am arguing about interpreting the second amendment I think it sounds reasonable or makes any sense to continue to follow something that doesn't account for the difference in arms and weapon of that time and our time. No matter what the second amendment says, you are probably not less than seventy or eighty years late to changing the situation while the bloodshed consequence of that continued and the country became poisoned deeper and deeper with the spread of guns.But clearly one may not refuse also showing that the second amendment itself has cancelled itself if it is the case.