Want vs. lack

The main reason for writing the preceding post was to point out that I was describing a want not a lack with my identity complex claim. If it was understood as a lack then that is probably an additional sign for the existence of this complex because that understanding is coming from the complex itself. Also if the word "lack" above was understood to refer to the lacking of identity then that also could be for this same reason. What I was referring to with absence of a "lack" is the absence of a deficiency that is required to be dealt with through having an identity regardless of whether that is because it is there or it is not needed.  

I actually don't like to speak or think in terms of identity. I used that word here as a compromise between reaching depth and expressiveness. Otherwise I try to go to the root and think in terms of existence of the self and the world not existence of the self in the world.    

Why "being" was taken as "is"- 2

I noticed today that I was not paying enough attention to differentiate between two types of second amendment abuse through the identity complex.One of these is caused by guns while the other is through guns but depends on nothing specific to guns.For example the path I described in the preceding post belongs to the second one not the first of these two because it deals with the amendment directly and has nothing specific to guns.It could have applied on anything else had it been what was the second amendment about.  

Why "being" was taken as "is"

You want another sign that the second amendment was abused in this way here is because of the identity complex I mentioned earlier? Take a look at how "being" was treated like "is" with no apparent interest I can find ,from either side, to take a look at its limitation. I couldn't find any reasonable interpretation for the severity of that. The identity complex psychological explanation on the other hand is clear. Taking "being" as equivalent to "is" is an insistence on the continuity of that being. In other words it means being the same. Being the same serves the identity complex here by emphasising the definition of a frozen period of the real existence in the world.

Defining my position more accurately

First, let me start by saying that my stating that "being necessary to the security of a free state" in the comma before "being" version as being stated from the authority of reality not that of making a constitution is not accurate. The accurate expression should have limited that claim to the necessity stated in that quoted part. Otherwise I am not claiming that stating that the requirement to follow the operative part if a militia is necessary in reality did not come from the authority of writing a constitution.

Also, instead of stating the claim above saying that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution I probably can  

expresse that better in saying that the authority of writing a constitution referred us to the authority of reality.

Second, it does not negate my claim if what is referred to in "being" has additionally the constitutional writing authority in stating it. In fact that could make the signs and explanations I am trying to make here even stronger. My concern is about what was not referred to with that "being". Or,to state that differently, it is about what was referred to through the limitations of "being" outside that being. In fact , I probably shouldn't be required to make a case for my reality dependency argument here since it seems to be passively established on its own through the limitations of "being". In other words what I am doing here seems to be equivalent to an affirmative defense against the current interpretation which itself should have carried the burden of making a case for not taking into account the limitations of "being". From the first time I read the amendment I wondered about how unnaturally that "being" seems to be taken and understood away from its limitations. Who on earth would use "being" in that way to refer to continuity of something against the limitation resistance of that same "being"? I continue to find no justification for that understanding. 

One thing that is necessary to be looked at  is if the being referred to in the amendment has sufficiently changed to a different being making the militia unnecessary in current reality. If the answer is yes then the operative clause would stop being applicable. The answer to that, at least because of the insufficiency compared to modern weapons, has been yes for a very long time.  

[(Added 5/2/14) Saying that it does not negate my claim if what is referred to in "being" has additionally the constitutional writing authority in stating it was wrong or because it would stand against my argument through the lacking of the ability to make the two versions of the amendment ratify or even just fit each other]

The absence of a main conjunction

Notes that understanding the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of  a free state" as always true coming from the authority of writing a constitution does not give a good reason for not using a conjunction to connect to the operative clause. Actually saying something like :
Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
while would still be faced with the same question of if they did not want to restrict the operative clause by the first one why did not they put the operative clause first, the use of "is" instead of "being" would make a better case for a continuity claim regarding a  militia being necessary to the security of a free state. 
Understanding the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of  a free state" as coming from the authority of reality and intended to reason with us, on the other hand, can more sufficiently explain the absence of a conjunction to the operative clause. Had the amendment been stated as, for example, this:

If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people...

it would have been still suffering from the same shortcomings of the comma-less before "being" version. That is because ,as mentioned earlier,the comma after being serves both the purpose of stating the necessity as a condition on a militia and also the purpose of stating that satisfying that condition is dependant on the environment in general and not the militia itself as long as it is "well regulated". The example above satisfies only the first of these two intentions. 

 

Difference in intentions or just their expressions?

Accepting both the comma and comma-less before "being" versions makes it very probable that the difference in what was intended is not deep or important. The understanding for "being necessary to the security of a free state" for which I argue creates a difference in  only the expressions of these two versions instead of also the intentions and concepts behind them that seems to fit  sufficiently into that category much more than the other alternative. That is because the alternative of understanding that part as being stated from the authority of writing a constitution and always true gives no reason for causing differences in expressing it. If it came from the authority of writing a constitution what was that those who made the amendment were struggling in expressing? Yes, stating something just for clarifying things does not serve the original purpose of a constitution being a do and don't guide. But that would be, at worst, just like adding fluff  to the constitution which is not worthy of causing this difference in the versions of the amendment regarding the existence of the comma before "being".
But on the other hand the understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution, although serves better the purpose of a constitution being an execution book because it affect the execution of the operative part, is much more sufficient reason to cause a cautious attempt  in using these two versions of the amendment to avoid misleading.  
Another thing that supports that the difference was only in the expressions and not   the intentions and concepts behind these two expressions is how in the development process the alternative version ,which was the comma-less before "being" version, came later  than many, if not most, comma versions and two weeks or more after proposing the bill of rights. That is because if the difference was in the intentions and concepts that difference would have more probably manifested itself clearly earlier than that especially for something as substantial as stating that part as being always true according to the alternative understanding mentioned earlier. 

What Was Ratified?

Understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution is not just simply supported by that it makes combining the two versions fits better but is required because one of them ratifies the other. To show that in more detailed way lets ask ourselves this question first:

What Was Ratified?

If the answer is that what was ratified is what is shared between these two versions then it is clear that the comma-less before "being" version does not state "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact. That means taking that part as a fact will not be part of the amendment and therefore we do not need to argue about its meaning.

If ,on the other hand, the answer is that what was ratified is the comma before "being" Congress version then the two versions need to be seen as completely equivalent to each other. It is not hard to see the comma before "being" version as stating the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" as both a fact and a condition. In fact, this was how I naturally understood it the first time I looked at it without much thinking. But how about the comma-less before "being" version which states the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" as only a condition and not a fact? The absence of that part as a fact can only leave it for  reality reasoning and indicates that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution. In addition, taking into account that the fact in the comma version states the necessity of a militia and the condition in the comma-less version calls on following what is necessary, shows how suitable it is for that fact to be left to reasoning.

Notes how not ratifying that "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact means it is not part of the constitution as a fact expresses that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution. Another way to look at that is in how something in the constitution that was stated from the authority of reality rather than that of writing a constitution is seen as part of the constitution but is not really a direct part of what a constitution serves in its purpose of being a do and don't guide and how that expressed in having that part as a fact in one version and not the other. It may be worthy of being mentioned again that although stating that part from the authority of writing a constitution may not makes it a direct part of what a constitution is intended to serve it is still makes it serves better the purpose of making a constitution through affecting the execution of the operative clause than the other alternative that makes it being stated from the authority of writing a constitution but affects the execution of the operative clause in no way and serves no execution purpose other than clarifying a purpose.  

Why so much insistence on "being"?

Why it seems that all versions of the amendment including those through the development use "being" when stating the necessity of a militia? If it is just an artistic expression why wasn't it changed?

If it serves the same purpose as ,for example, "is" or similar things why wasn't it replaced by that even in any suggested version through the development?

Even the initial proposal which stated

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security.."  did not say that "..;a well armed and well regulated militia IS the best security..".

Clearly, seeing that something gets used that much  significantly more than what seem to be equivalent others pushes for thinking about the difference. 
What is the difference between "being" and words like "is"?

What "being" serves and what differentiates it from the like of "is"

is that it states directly only the existence of what is stated at the current time. It clearly does not state the continuity of what is stated. Instead , that continuity is dependent on the absence of changes. Otherwise, "being" clearly and strongly emphasizes that it does not contain any continuity in itself.

Such insitance on using "being" even more strongly suggests an intention to restricting the "necessary to the security of a free state" description to the time of making the amendment and opening the door for testing its continuity in the future.        

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version - 3

Another way to express that is to say:

The comma-less before "being" version of the amendment more clearly makes "being necessary to the security of a free state" a condition on a militia.The comma before "being" version of the amendment shows how looking for the satisfaction of that condition should be done. It does that through the use of the comma before "being". This comma changes the "being necessary to the security of a free state" from a condition to a fact. The generality that comes from stating "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact in comparison with stating it as a condition was not intended for the purpose of stating that it remains continuously true regardless of reality changes. On the contrary, the word "being" directly points only to the applicability of what it states in the current time. No, that generality is the result of an intention to state the origin of what makes a militia being "necessary to the security of a free state" is the general environment at the time and not the militia itself as long as it is "well regulated". 

 

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version - 2

One could also say that the generality created by the use of the comma before "being" was not to state the endless continuity of the applicability of  "necessary to the security of a free state" on a "well regulated" militia as the always true understanding of that part would imply. Instead the generality created by the use of that comma was to state the origin of  "necessary to the security of a free state" in a "well regulated" militia as being the general environment in which it existed and not  the "well regulated" militia itself.   

Submitting an Amicus Brief

Too bad, it seems that because I am not a lawyer I am not allowed to send the Supreme Court an Amicus brief if it takes a case that may involve taking a second look at the second amendment.

Is a seperate amendment based sufficiency argument necessary?

I noticed yesterday that even in my task of trying to make my case from the second amendment itself, it is not necessary to make a separate sufficiency argument from the amendment. Instead, my other argument that the "necessary to the security of a free state" did not come from the authority of writing a constitution as is the case with the do and don't parts of the constitution and was not intended to be taken as always true regardless of reality  would by itself allow considering the sufficiency part if it is understood to be a part of being "necessary".

Position of the operative clause - 2

In this post

http://druggedonguns.blogspot.com/2014/02/position-of-operative-clause.html

I argued that if the part before the operative one of the second amendment was not intended to restrict the operative clause and the operative clause always applies then the operative clause would have been placed in a much more needed position and fits much better at the beginning instead of the arrangement through which the amendment was expressed.

Today I noticed that such arrangement not only was not chosen but was explicitly avoided as it came in this initially suggested wording

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but..."

LINK

(more details in the Wikipedia article)

Why different versions of the second amendment were allowed?

AS you can see ,unlike the other alternative, understanding the "necessary to the security of a free state" as being reality dependent makes sense from both the version with and the one without comma before "being". It fits how each version served to concentrate on stating part of the purpose and shows how combining the two states  a needed whole. By doing that it also answers an important question it is not clear how it could be addressed using the other alternative understanding. That question is how is it possible to accept that those who put that much effort arguing and negotiating the details of expressing the amendment allows confusing people with two version that do not connect to or fit each other like that? I don't know if the change in other commas or capitalizations makes as much essential differences as the existence or absence of the comma before "being" but I know that  understanding the "necessary to the security of a free state" as being reality dependent provides a way, if not the only way, to at least solve that part of the puzzle. After all, remember that the change in the wording of developing the amendment from September 4 to 9 of same month in 1789 which I spoke about in a previous post shows clearly that attention was being paid to the existing commas and in the case of the one before "being" it is a very remote probability that with that attention the significance of its existence or removal was failed to be recognized.

Raising that point reminds me of a related similar one I thought about earlier. How much does it fit to think that those who even refused to allow the government to support the establishment of any religion would in the same bill establish a concept in the reasoning (or clarifying as some may like to call it) part of the second amendment with the intention for that reasoning or clarifying part to be taken as a fact that is always true to begin with? Where else in the entire constitution a concept was intended to be forced in the same way?As I said earlier, the purpose of a constitution is about do and don't not forcing concepts. 

 

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version

I think that there are overwhelming signs and evidences that the first comma in the congress version of the second amendment was intended to make stating "necessary to the security of a free state" from the authority of reality rather than that of making a constitution. Nevertheless while it may not be required, it would still be better if the benefit of the comma can be seen.

It seems to me that one of the big benefits of the first comma is that it directs thinking for evaluating the necessity of a militia (and that includes its sufficiency) to be on the basis of the existing environment  at the time  and applying generally on  any "well regulated" militia there rather than about a specific militia creation. That was emphasized more with the use of "being" instead of ,for example, "which is".

In other words the comma version shows that although the comma-less version makes the "necessary to the security of a free state" a requirement on the "well regulated" militia, satisfying or not satisfying that requirement actually dose not come from the militia itself and is not dependent on any specific structure or composition (other than being "well regulated") but is dependent on the  environment and  leads to one end result applying on any variation of a "well regulated" militia the same way.

"being the best security"

Several days ago I made a post about finding how the relative comparison "best" was changed to the non-comparative word "necessary" and how that provides even more support for the argument related to the need for the sufficiency of the militia in our modern weapon world.But then I found out that change was not direct and there were other middle step(s) so I deleted the post since it was still less than 24 hours old.In this post I am going back to that point again.

We can see that the "being the best security" description for the militia started early in the process of making the amendment. That continued from June 8 1789

LINK
to September 4 of the same year as shown by this Senate version:

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

LINK

(click "PREV IMAGE" to see the date of "FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1789")

Assuming that I am not missing other intermediate step(s), that was changed also by the Senate in September 9 of the same year to:

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
LINK

(click "PREV IMAGE" to see the date of "WEDENSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789")

As you can see the relative comparison "best" was removed and replaced by a condition related to satisfying "being the security" expressed through the removal of the comma before "being". In other words we again reach similar conclusion related to the sufficiency of a militia similar to the earlier one that was missing this intermediate step.

Notice how that was supported again by the ratified version.

If one hesitates to use the word "removal" and instead try to be content with "omission" with the ratified version,this was a pure intentional removal for the comma before "being".

Now we see that the "being necessary for the security of a free state" in the Congress comma version being clamped from the development side by the same congress before making the amendment then later by the interpretation side through the ratified version after making the amendment as being intended to be reality dependent instead of always true.  

All the related data and links were found through the Wikipedia article about the second amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution  

The Ratified Version of the Second Amendment - 3

One could also say that the ratified version makes it clear that the stating of fact in saying a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state comes from the authority of reality, which is available to anyone arguing for anything, and not the authority of writing a constitution. 

The Ratified Version of the Second Amendment - 2

I think that having two versions of the amendment can be a helping thing instead of a troubling thing when combined. With regard to the omission of the first comma in the ratified version, it tells us that whether a militia is necessary to the security of a free state or not is left to our good judgment and is not part of what we are required to follow in the amendment.   

The Ratified Version of the Second Amendmen

Notice that the text of the ratified version of the second amendment fits with my interpretation that the necessity of the militia was not intended to be imposed as a fact that is always true. It does that by omitting the first comma which is the only thing that indicates telling a fact (regardless of how was it intended to be taken).

Without that comma there doesn't seem to be any stating for the necessity of the militia as a fact .   

Instead the operative clause is connected to the beginning clause similar to the connection in this statement:

A car being ready to move, the passengers must buckle their seat belts.

Even if that statement is understood when stated to indicate that there is a car being ready to move that understanding comes from taking into account why the speaker is saying that not because the statement itself states that fact.

Even if I am wrong in saying that there is no stating for the necessity of the militia as a fact there, there is still a big significance in not emphasizing that with the coma. Instead what we see is that the reasoning connection being more emphasized in the text of the ratified version in comparison with whether facts at that time satisfies that reasoning. That shows what was being understood as the main intention behind the amendment. It is not just like any interpretation that came from that period because that is an interpretation that was accepted in as much as it was expressed as stated in the text of the ratified version of the amendment.