I generally don't depend on using momentums so it shouldn't be surprising that I come and go here like this. However, I intend to finish a one comprehensive submission for my second amendment interpretation argument before the supreme court rule on a case that involve taking a second look at the interpretation of that amendment, assuming, of course, that I wont miss knowing that it took such a case when it does.

The biggest ball dropping

The second amendment contains a part that requires updated evaluation to its applicability to the environment. As much as the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was invoked to reinterpret the second amendment and it did not consider that requirement as much as it failed to carry its interpretive role which was directly calling on it to keep up with the changes here. That seems to be the situation since earlier , and probably much earlier, than the second world war. During all that time people paid the price of a very outdated evaluation for the applicability of the second amendment on the newer environments with their lives.  

I probably need to explain this. The connection of Originalism to the purpose of the previous post was to show a view for what I said coming from someone sharing with the framers the absence of connections to the external factors leading to such view. 

By the way, speaking about Originalism, I want to point out that I don't see how "in God we trust" is considered to be not in contradiction with the first amendment and I have been wondering about this in my mind before I knew anything about the interpretations of other amendments with major cases.

Applying Originalism on "because"

As I stated before, I think that taking "being" as "because" misses important part in the meaning. Like any interpretation that aims to make things simpler by ,among other things, limiting itself to what is of concern, interpreting it as such in older times could have been intended to concentrate on its application at that time. Anyway, even if you understand it as "because" then originalism seems to add significantly to why the amendment made its operative clause no longer applicable. There is a much bigger reason for originalism to lead this way here than it is to  lead to  ,for example, that no banning on same sex sexual relations do not follow from the amendments on  liberty or equal protection. Unlike the development in weaponry and the difference between military machinery and that for civilians between then and now, that kind of relationship was already known at the time and something to exclude the application of the amendments on such issues could have been added if it was intended. The argument using that a punishment for such actions continued to exist before and after such amendments imply that the framers did not intend such applications also stands against itself by emphasising the existence and connection and make one wonders why such refusal did not manifest itself in the making of those amendments if the intention was to exclude such issues from the application? That may be more required especially when you have a first amendment that prevent the government from adopting any religion. So one may argue that at least the framers did not want to prevent extending the application to issues like that in the future (The issue with abortion is a different one because they wouldn't need to add exclusion for it if they believed it to be encroaching on another person.So from whatever point that become applicable after conception then abortion would mean crossing on the rights of others and no longer part of the individual rights domain to begin with). The originalism view to the second amendment,on the other hand, requires not to continue on the old evaluation for the necessity of the militia of that time in our time not only because one may assume it being the reason and originalism requires taking into account what existed or can be seen at that time but also because the dependence on that evaluation was actively stated in the first part of the amendment and the objection stated above is not applicable here.                    

Applying Originalism on the use of "being"

Yesterday I watched a part of a video that reminded me of Justice Scalia's position of limiting the interpretation of the constitution to the meaning at the time. I have not yet put much attention and thought about what should my position be or how I define it with regard to that issue of general interpretation path for the constitution. However, regardless of what my position would be ,I wonder how such interpretation view gets applied by default but stopped short of being sufficiently applied when there was an intentional pointing to the current status by using the word "being" in the second amendment and the part about the necessity of a militia was taken to always apply unconditionally?