+88 (second amendment interpretation 63)

If one argues that, instead of preceding execution with the purpose expressing emphasizing exclusion over execution as suggested by the preceding post, that precedence expresses total sufficiency of the purpose to lead to the execution part, then that still may not affect the main argument in that post. That is because with this view instead of controlling the right to keep and bear Arms, we start with total focus on the purpose of having a well regulated militia to begin with. So how could that express any caring about having the right to keep and bear Arms for other purposes?    

By the way, designating an "execution" part here refers to the end part for its execution, when applicable, the Amendment was made. It clearly should not be taken to imply stating that the "purpose" part has no execution.  

+87 (second amendment interpretation 62)

I am usually very capable of viewing things from the opposing side. However, I still cannot bring myself to imagine the Second Amendment reflecting, not even just neutral, but the contrary to seeing it reflecting wide consensus that there is a right to have arms in which the government should not interfere. It is very hard to imagine such alleged intention being expressed that way. Even if one can bring from here and there views from that time suggesting the existence of such impression or conception, it is not hard to see the Amendment as reacting to such conception instead of being emanating from it. I could have supported this view with mere assignment of purpose for the arms keeping and bearing right. But the Amendment provided more than that. Take a look at the whole amendment. The fact that it gave right to arms while a militia is necessary to the security of a free state should not eclipse seeing controlling the right to arms within which that came expressed. That control on the right to arms was expressed by assigning a purpose ( "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and giving it precedence over execution ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed").

I feel strongly that the gun culture here is contrary to the inclination shown by the Amendment and guns were made into a golden calf for this nation.

+86

continuing from the preceding post:

In the past if a state does not have an army, which was at that time the same thing or very close to having a military, constructing one was mainly about combining people. But what about now? The states themselves are dependents on the federal government in their security and freedom protection. However, they keep blindly applying those outdated Second Amendment equivalents in their constitutions on their citizens for that already dependent outcome. 

+85

Actually, you may eliminate much of the reason for Second Amendment equivalents in state constitutions from the start easily.

Protecting against the state government turning into a dictatorship or abusing fundamental rights is a very outdated need. Now there are federal rights to people that would call for the involvement of the federal government if citizens from that state complain to the federal courts of such behaviour. Also, back then the federal government did not have much difference in power from that of state government to impose such rights when needed. Now there is no comparison and nobody needs the help of people's ownership of firearms there.

+84

The Second Amendment discussion here can be taken as a sample for all similar things in state constitutions. People need to open their minds to the change in environment and how those things had different risk to security balance in those old times. People need to follow intelligently not blindly. Intelligent following concentrate on the purpose and not necessarily the means like someone driving his car into a river trying to follow a boat to the same destination. 

Even arms for self-defense as a purpose, in addition to changes affecting it directly between then and now, it might have acquired significance as a building block  to the capability of a group to defend itself using conventional arms back then much far from what military machinery would allow in our current time. It could be, even with the risk-benefit balance of back then, less about acquiring the armed capability of a self defense right regardless of how applicable that right is, than it seems.   

This is not against people following their own laws but it is against people doing that like a person in a hypnotic state unable to perceive his surroundings.

+83 (second amendment interpretation 61)

I was thinking yesterday about how POST +76 may not be correct when I realized that I do not need to worry about that here because I do not need to argue for the validity of the ratification. I am arguing against taking "arms" in the ratified version instead of "Arms" in the Congress version. Doing that does not fit Article 5 about Amendment creation in the constitution because Congress did not suggest the larger set (arms).  

+82 (second amendment interpretation 60)

This maybe already reached from POST 78 but it is not a bad idea to point it out.

The right to self-defense is not the same as the right to have the capability of the right to self-defense. The proof for that is that for any empowerment intended for self-defense you can imagine some level at which it would be called crazy behaviour because there is no need for the taken precaution. Since there is an external factor involved, it must be excluded before, for example, denying somebody buying a gun can be called denying to his self-defense right.

+81 (second amendment interpretation 59)

continuing from the preceding post

Had the Second Amendment been:
Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I still would have said:
Why they did not say being necessary to the security of the person and free state, or being necessary to the defense of the person and free state, or being necessary to the security, or just being necessary or simply give no reason. Should we understand the security of a free state here to include the security of the person? How much does it fit the purpose of explaining a reason choosing such a narrow top down approach? They did not speak in general or start from the root purpose for everything, the person.

But the preventing of restricting or infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms was not even connected to the security of a free state as a purpose directly but instead through the middle layer that of "[a] well regulated militia". That fits answering fears like ours of misusing the power of arms ownership by intercepting the purpose stated in the amendment by a well regulated entity.
As much as there is organizing and following of a command chain in a group, as less as there is probability for chaos in using the arms they have. So it is not hard to unite the above potential purpose with that of seeking the competitive power the organizing and following a command chain like an official force brings to the militia I spoke about in earlier posts.

+80 (second amendment interpretation 58)

Still about the incorporating issue

We have this elephant standing in the middle. We have the Second Amendment talks about "being necessary to the security of a free state" as the reason for having a "well regulated" militia and that, in turn, as the reason to prevent infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Having the right to keep and bear arms for self defense according to that does not change the reason given for the right to keep and bear arms to being for self defense. 

So even if the court has shown keeping and bearing arms being "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" in general, how much does the way the Second Amendment was written show specifically that it is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition to restrict exclusively for the security of a free state the restrictions on keeping and bearing arms? 

Also all the reference by the court to the preceding history in recognizing a right to keep and bear arms for self defense, seem like an added benefit here in case an objection gets raised based on the history following the making of the Second Amendment.      

+79 (second amendment interpretation 57)

Still about the incorporating issue

It seems that contrary to what I said in post +77 of this subsears, the court in McDonald v. City of Chicago was not arguing for gun ownership directly from a self-defense right stand but from that of a right to keep and bear arms that fits the test it mentioned of being "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," for due process incorporation. But the right to keep and bear arms is not like an instinct we know it remains the same. So while the court wanted to apply the above quote on keeping and bearing arms in our time, it supported its argument with keeping and bearing arms with a very different set of advantages because of being from very different environment back then. How much there is a difference between then and now in the dependence of the average person on himself for protection? How about the value of keeping and bearing arms to self defense for its potential collective rule in pushing away and defending the self from internal or external governments or the difference in the capability of the government to defend and repel against even a group of  people back then and now?   

+78 (second amendment interpretation 56)

Continuing from the preceding post

Third, I have just started into what courts call substantive due process. It seems to be about applying the protection offered to the "person" in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment by expanding the view to what a person is and arguing for the actions in question as being an extension to the existence of that person. But regardless of how many precaution layers people may seek their self defense right for, self defense right is not just about satisfying the capability for self defense. And although nobody is denying the self defense right, the connection of that to gun ownership is dependent on the external environment and does not directly extends from the self. So how could substantive due process apply here?
The external versus internal connection about which I am speaking here is at the level of the beginning urge. Unlike, for example food to hunger or birth control to sex, using a gun for self defense is by definition can only be called for externally. 

+77 (second amendment interpretation 55)

Some speak about self defense as a purpose for gun ownership as a reason making other parts of the constitution applicable. To this I want first to say that you need to prove not only real but also unique dependency on that ownership. This is not like saying the government can suppress a newspaper because you can express your opinion on TV. There expressing an opinion in newspaper is still an expression of opinion even with the existence of other alternative. Here, on the other hand, the creation of the defense part in the self defense claim needs the absence of other solutions. It is not enough that a gun enables a person to eliminate a danger for its ownership to be supported by self defence claim.

The second thing is that you also have self defense claim for the people under the legislation in question. You have individual self defense claim against group self defense claim. It is not like anybody would legislate against gun ownership just because they look ugly.    

+76 (second amendment interpretation 54)

"Arms" in the congress version seems to make it easier than "arms" in the ratified version to know that we are not talking about weapons like a tank or a fighter jet, because it points at specific objects. Luckily, it seems that "Arms" is what we need to deal with because Amendments are created, according to the constitution, by the process of both being suggested by congress and ratified by the states. So, whether the ratified version was intended to identify the congress version or as a different version, "Arms" is what we get through either being the shared word or referring to a shared subset of "arms".    

+75 (second amendment interpretation 53)

Regarding my "being" part in the argument of post +71, instead of arguing using the externality part of "being", I could have used its direct meaning of locality in time. That is because it is even more meaningless to tell us just that a reason exist if it does not always exist.

  

+74 (second amendment interpretation 52)

Do others really miss the sense of compromising that comes from reading the amendment?

Also regarding the preceding post, and in comparison with other amendments, one shouldn't miss taking into account that those amendments were all part of one creation comprising the bill of rights.

Now I want to correct or adjust somethings.

First, instead of saying that by using "being" they did not point at the militia itself, I want to replace that with saying that they pointed at the militia at a specific locality of time. The conclusion drawn from that in contrast with pointing at the militia at all times, in other words without time restriction, remains the same.

The second thing I want to deal with is my use of the word "externality". What follows from pointing at the necessity of the militia at a specific locality or point of time is that it suggests relationship of that necessity to external factors and therefore pointing at that locality imply pointing at that externality or the availability of that necessity feature for detection from outside and that suggests clarity. 

I don't think I am the only one who have seen "being" used to point out the clarity of a fact.

Although even without it we maybe standing close enough to the thing we are trying to look at, it seems that here we were able to pinpoint externality as being expressed through the locality of time and thereby solve the issue I mentioned in post 72.  

     

+73 (second amendment interpretation 51)

I don't know where does the stand that they were so okay with guaranteeing the right to firearm ownership come from and how can it maintain itself in front of things pointing so clearly to the contrary? Why no other right needed a supporting reason like this one? Neither things as important as free speech nor things that seems as unessential to a constitution as preventing quartering soldiers in houses were accompanied by any supporting reasoning or explanation. So where does the firearm ownership right fall along that line?    

However, assuming they were that okay with firearm ownership being above legislation at that time is actually better for my argument. That is because it suggests more focus on later times like ours as the reason behind the hardly avoidable sense of balancing things which the reading of the amendment brings. From the beginning I was impressed with how the amendment shows what suggests an attempt at balancing risk with benefit and how that in turn suggests anticipating the increased risk of firearms that came later, and have not seen yet seen what justifies ignoring that. 

   

+72 (second amendment interpretation 50)

I was thinking whether the use of "being" was intended to point out the externality of the fact and the focus on slicing that time period follow passively and how that could fit if my other posts seems to put suggesting the later in the forefront. But earlier than this I was already thinking how mistaking what is the base for what could be more a positive sign instead of negative because of its suggestion that there is a real structure you are trying to disassemble and present in parts. Thinking about how the "being" here is the equivalent to somebody explaining to another that this is his situation made me see that I could be trying to get too close and overdo the disassembling here. When a person explains to another "this is my situation" should he be taken to refer to the externality of the situation or the effect of current time? Or is it that the two come together as one whole?

+71 (second amendment interpretation 49)

I take "necessary to the security of a free state" to be intended for us to understand the reason and not just to tell us a reason exist associated with it. For the later thing, in addition to answering how could that fit a constitution, it also needs one to take the stand that the framers did not see that could be taken that other way or saw it and did not care about using things like "being" to point at the status of the existence of the militia, suggesting that understanding the reason is something ready to be grasped from outside, or even limit their explanation to suggest the existence of unseen reason. As an explanation not intended for us to understand the reason, how much of a difference does it make to tell us that there is a reason related to those things from just telling us that a reason exists? Is that difference reasonably worth the risk of having that part taken to be intended to make the reason understandable? Why not just "necessary" instead of that whole part above?

Oh, forget to remind of this. If we are not supposed to understand the reason beyond that it exists and associated with the "security of a free state", does not that lead to the reason being always applicable? If so, then why would you put that in front of the part you always want to be executed? How many times has anyone seen people talk that way? Also here they did not care about the possibility of being understood that other way? 

What part of the constitution suggests that group and not just one person shared choosing to act that recklessly and/or in that way far from natural behaviour?    

+70 (second amendment interpretation 48)

I am not trying to sugarcoat things here. Maybe they saw truly free state is the one where the people and in turn the militia has the most power and that is why they said "free state" instead of just "state". However, we have what we have and it does not mean that we should follow imagining that the militia can have such power in order to convince ourselves that our freedom is of similar quality.

+69 (second amendment interpretation 47)

This may not be needed but I still want to do it. I do not like skipping or being distracted from the root as the conclusion at the preceding post may lead. So instead, I want to replace that with saying that because they did not tell us that continuity and we took it merely based on that a thing is assumed to continue its status until one knows otherwise, the decision on when that continuity stops was left to us. The main intention here is to target the "is dependent entirely on what we see in our environment" I said there. The rest is just a re-expression.     

+68 (second amendment interpretation 46)

After writing the post below I thought about something that could help more in fighting this denial to the importance of "being" in the second amendment and make it easier to see its role. I thought about the issue of continuity with "being" and how to deal with the burden of proof there. I gave myself some examples trying to imagine how I would naturally act and found that I may act as if there is a continuity unless I know otherwise. So does that mean I was wrong to say that "being" has no continuity? Isn't "being" about the status of things?

Here is the important thing. Unlike when speaking about the object itself, continuity with "being" does not come from the speaker. Instead, it comes from simply the absence of things telling you that the thing which was spoken about its status with "being" has changed from that status. Therefore with the second amendment the judgement of whether a militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state" is dependent entirely on what we see in our environment because the makers of the amendment did not tell us that continuity but just the status of the militia and we assumed it would continue its status until we know otherwise.    

+67 (second amendment interpretation 45)

continuing from the preceding post

Is it possible to find in history another example of psychotic-like denial involving an entire nation like the situation with ignoring the status meaning in "being" in the second amendment here? Just like when a person takes a standstill position for an identification picture, they froze on that being to be one of their identification as a group. How could an entire nation be that blind just to reach a psychological satisfaction? Doesn't anybody look at the amendment and wonder what that "being" doing there? The status implication of that "being" may not be ignored coming from a person speaking on the spot in some social situation. So how about when it comes from a group like those people after taking the time to prepare both the ideas and the form of what they will say for a constitution?  

  

+66 (second amendment interpretation 44)

Back to proving that dependency from the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. Can anyone answer to the self what gives it the right to understand "being" there as being intended for continuity instead of what its direct meaning shows in being about a status? Seeing the dependency here is not far from realizing that direct meaning. Because if "necessary to the security of a free state" was merely about the fact that the people of a free state are the most trusted to defend that state and did not include dependency on the militia to take that role, then it is an always true fact and does not need to be pointed out as a status.

+65 (second amendment interpretation 43)

The actions of one individual are by default assumed to be built on a reasonable ground or a reasonable explanation needs to be provided for suggesting otherwise. That is for one individual. So how about if a number of those people at that time shared fear of the effect of government disarming the people on the militia's capability to resist the government or external enemy whether because of direct weakening through the disarmament or through the court's theory of its leading to elimination of the militia? Where is the reasonableness in seeing that dependency on the militia was built on a capability of the militia like that of our time relative to the machinery of this or an average military if it invades this country? 

+64 (second amendment interpretation 42)

continuing from the preceding post:

Or look at this in the opinion:

"During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule .."

Whether that fear comes from the direct effect of disarmament or the court's theory of its leading to eliminate the militia, in both cases it implies dependency on that the militia can resist the government.

Or this

"John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress's "command of the militia" could be used to create a "select militia," or to have "no militia at all," but also, as a separate concern, that "[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508-509 (M. Jensen ed.1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people"

That also imply dependency on that the militia can resist. (Again, the dependency I keep talking about is within the meaning of post +61).

+63 (second amendment interpretation 41)

I just noticed that I do not need to be restricted in proving the existence of that dependency on the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part but instead can take the whole amendment for that with the explanation of empowerment being the purpose behind the amendment. On the other hand the court's theory of preserving the militia built on recognizing the history of the effect of disarming the public by rulers on preserving the militia. So one could simply ask: How did that effect on the militia become noticeable other than by the absence of showing resistance to those rulers? This imply dependence on that a militia should be capable of doing that.       

+62

When the judges of the final court become convinced, dealing with this issue shouldn't be postponed for any reason. It is a very low bar or may not be even a bar for judges in an issue like this to hear even from a person whom they do not like or inclined differently about the position of that person in other matters. This separation is what should be expected from a judge on any issue let alone something like this. In addition, if that is not enough with me, things could still be balanced with negative signs elsewhere given that waiver of my rights I have given. 

Dealing with this issue is already the king of all too little too late situations despite its incomparable significance.

+61 (second amendment interpretation 40)

continuing from the preceding post

In case there is a confusion, let me emphasize that the dependency to which I am referring is a dependency on the existence of the fact that the militia can satisfy what the "necessary to the security of a free state" calls for and not necessary on being served by that satisfaction. In other words, even if you assume that there was the protection of a sufficiently powerful official army to a free state and nobody felt any need for a militia, my dependency reference would remain applicable because it is about the dependency on the fact not the service.       

+60 (second amendment interpretation 39)

Continuing from the preceding post

In addition to how that dependency very easily suggests itself because of the environment of that time, we also have the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. What could be better than having the people of a free state defend themselves? So then why that part was stated with "being" emphasizing status instead of a form that imply continuity (like "is necessary to the..")? Then it must be that the capability to fulfill what "necessary to the security of a free state" calls for was taken into account. That imply dependency on that capability because this part was stated as the reason for the arms clause.    

+59 (second amendment interpretation 38)

Somebody could say:

You keep pointing out how the difference in power between official and public forces was mainly about being organized and having a chain of commands. Doesn't that add to the preserving of the militia being a purpose?

The answer to this question is that closeness in power at that time also adds to the empowerment argument by as much as it opens the door to make things equal not just close. However, I am not going to counter it with this and other things but instead use it to adjust my position for even more probability of being correct and to remove possible confusion of different implications behind preserving the militia being a purpose. I do that by expanding my position from empowerment which imply having sufficient power being the purpose, to, dependency on having sufficient power. Preserving the militia being a purpose would lead to the arms clause of the amendment being applicable on our time only if the purpose for preserving the militia lacked enough dependence on having sufficient/comparable power to fit our time.      

+58 (second amendment interpretation 37)

Continuing from the preceding post
I need first to bring attention to something I have been describing incorrectly or at least potentially misleadingly for a long time and have just noticed. While most, if not all of my related arguments still fit because they were made in contrast with the purpose of the amendment being empowerment, it was a mistake, at least without proper caution,  to take preserving the militia being a purpose behind the amendment as equal to the mere existence of the militia itself being a purpose. 

Having said that lets continue:  
Moreover before considering how probable preserving the militia being a purpose, shouldn't it be first convincingly explained how that can be served through the action required by the amendment? The explanation provided by the court leaves one speechless because of how far it is from even the neighborhood of satisfying that.

Also lets not forget, the points here are in addition to what follows from the arms clause being always applicable if preserving the militia being a purpose leads to that.

+57 (second amendment interpretation 36)

First we have the "well regulated" suggesting trying to make the militia as efficient as armies of that time.

Second, we have the use of "being" taking things away from expressing continuity to refer to the militia itself and instead stops at referring to its status.

Third, we have things taken away from expressing shared root coming from an always existent militia, by having "security" referred to as in its status of being a separate thing that can have its own degree of quality not necessarily as that provided by the militia.

Then, we have all that connected to the empowerment the arms clause leads to.   

It all seems to fit the purpose being effectiveness and shows nothing at the depth of the mere existence of the militia itself being a purpose behind the amendment. Unless we are reading one of those jokes that sets your mind at one meaning then surprise you with a much less expected one, does this look like how things should reasonably be expressed if the mere existence of the militia was a concern? They even could have suggested the mere existence of the militia being a purpose much better with less of the same expression by writing "necessary" instead of the whole "necessary to the security of a free state".

+56 (second amendment interpretation 35)

If the well regulated militia was seen as "necessary" because it is the only true defense to a free state regardless of how far it is from being reasonably capable of doing that, then, aside from other things, why the corresponding part in the amendment was not expressed as:

being the security of/to/for a free state

or
being the real security of/to/for a free state
or any other form showing that oneness in target 
and instead of:

"being necessary to the security of a free state" 

which treats the security issue as a separate thing that can have its own degree of quality?

+55 (second amendment interpretation 34)

continuing from the preceding post

By assuming being in the situation of a person one often becomes confident about knowing the intention of that person through the sharing of roots to the action of the later inside . Here instead of just one person, we have the probability of correctly sharing roots for something that was already successfully shared among a group. Moreover, each individual in that group was working for a task requiring staying close to the basic roots inside the self as that of adding to a constitution.     

+54 (second amendment interpretation 33)

I don't know why the second amendment should be targeted with interpretations chasing mysterious purposes as if we share no connection to make such thing with those who did. As if it is far from the minds of people trying to establish a system where people rule themselves to also think about making people also defend themselves in an environment empowering this choice like that. As if it is hard to think where there is such little difference in empowerment equipment between official forces and the public to make the larger one of those two domains in a free country its army. And the sad thing here is how the amendment itself reads as if it is actively saying there is no mysterious purpose here.  

+53 (second amendment interpretation 32)

Related to post +50 and +51 below, last night I thought about how back then, unlike now, the biggest thing that makes government force capable of overpowering that of the public is that the first is organized and follow commands. With that it immediately came to my mind the thought: Hey wait a minuet..didn't they mention what fits that and also put it first thing in the amendment ("well regulated")?  

By the way, I think it was clear that in post +51 that the first sentence was intended to be:
It was sufficient to make the argument in the post below had the the part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the amendment been followed by anything.  

+52 (second amendment interpretation 31)

Yesterday I thought about understanding statements that mix the use of "being" with generality. For example, a physics author writes water being liquid.. or a medical author writes the heart being the blood pumping organ .. or a botany specialist writes a fully grown palm tree being a big tree.. and so on of endless examples, are all those talking only about those things only as they are in their time because they are referring to their status using "being"? The answer to that is they are probably speaking about those things whenever they exist but that goes indirectly. Directly, yes, they are referring to the status of those things only during that time. Then that talks transfers to similar things in other time because they share the same status that was described with "being". The generality talk does not change "being" from status to continuous description although the end result may be concluded as continuous or always applicable if one sees the sharing of that description among all instances in different times. That is clearly not readily available or shown for the description "being necessary to the security of a free state" with all existence instances of the militia throughout time.

+51 (second amendment interpretation 30)

It was sufficient to make the argument in the post below had the the part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State amendment" been followed by anything. But instead it was followed by an empowering demand building on the basis of that argument. And again it was not just any empowering demand. It was an empowering demand that puts the militia equal in terms of keeping and bearing arms which is at that time was the main weapons in wining or losing a battle. The difference of having that one bullet primitive firearm was not ignored. How much does that speaks about the purpose being the capability to successfully protect the security of the free state by the militia?

+50 (second amendment interpretation 29)

Ask yourself can you depend on the militia to protect you from the machinery of the military of this country or even that of the average outsider military if it invades this country? If your answer is no then it means the applicability of the second amendment expired. Yes it is that simple.

Their pointing out "being necessary to the security of a free state" imply clarity in seeing the necessity of the militia and that clarity continued for a century of time or more after the amendment during which the biggest factor for a side to win a battle was the number of men it has. This is the test that fits that level of clarity.

+49 (second amendment interpretation 28)

continuing from the preceding post

What I should have said is that my understanding would fit the ratified version whether its talking about the militia was understood as conditional or general. The other understanding where the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" is taken as always necessary would not fit with the conditional understanding of the ratified version but it still can make the same fitting for the general understanding as it does with the congress version if it was not dependent on the first comma in that version to make the meaning that the militia is always necessary.

I am simply trying to guess what could be the other side's argument for why the "being" part was taken with continuity like "always" or using "is" to refer to the thing itself, because on its face "being" is about status.     

+48 (second amendment interpretation 27)

I need to rethink what I wrote in the preceding three posts and may comeback to correct that. 

+47 (second amendment interpretation 26)

The last part of the preceding post just occurred to me while I was making the post. A little bit of additional thinking on it one may argue that accepting the ratified version imply either accepting that version supersedes the other or accepting its acceptance of the other, and the end result of that becomes the amendment. In other words, either the ratified version ends up becoming the amendment or its fitting the other version becomes the amendment. In both cases it is the understanding for the part between the first two commas in the other version as being about generality not continuity that would fit the resulted amendment.     

+46 (second amendment interpretation 25)

Understanding the part between the first two commas as being about generality not continuity makes the ratified version without the first comma by itself acceptable.

Instead of looking at the absence of the first comma in the ratified version only as deficiency, we can see it as additional help in interpreting the comma version. These kind of arguments maybe seen as supported with how few or even one person understands the text or statement in question during that time. Here, we not only have the understanding suggested by all the people who approved the amendment in its comma-less version but also the approval of that understanding by the author. So why should one ignore all this and just assume acceptance of a big lacking like what the other understanding leads to. Actually, with or without that assumption, does not the action itself of accepting the ratified version constitute part of the creation of the amendment and we still receive the end result?     

+45 (second amendment interpretation 24)

In addition to how merely focusing on the "well regulated militia" as the thing intended to be spoken about can be sufficient to support my side on interpreting "being necessary to the security of a free state", notice how that also fits accepting a ratified version without the first comma. Both versions could provide the same end result except that the one with the first comma provides easier process by looking at the general environment of the time instead of on individual militias. Does understanding the "being necessary to the security of a free state" as always necessary to the security of a free state, provide close to this fit? Here the two versions seem in direct contradiction to each other, one supposedly says always while the other speaks about status.     

+44

I do not accept reserving the term "pro second amendment" to those who believe in firearm ownership right that cannot be taken away by the elected government and may choose not to recognize such use. The one who is truly pro second amendment should be also the one who interpret it correctly. 

+43

While you are taking more time on freeing people from the second amendment very past due expired obligation do not forget to keep in mind the thought of all gun victims having taken from them a right to make a choice that could have saved their lives.

+42 (second amendment interpretation 23)

The first comma was never to me but in support of my understanding of the purpose of the amendment let alone sufficient by itself to support a contrary view. But for those asking why the first comma, here is an amazingly simple and comprehensive answer others might already reached while I don't know how it escaped me until now.

Why the first comma, you ask?

The strongest answer to that is:

Because they wanted to talk about "A well- regulated militia" not about "A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". 

This answer include the answer I previously gave and shown through this example:

If the head of a company tells the supervisors of its divisions:

Employees, being needed, they should be given salary raise.

it is certainly different from saying:

Employees being needed, they should be given salary raise.

The first statement is about employees in general while removing the first comma from the second made it carry the meaning of specifying only needed employees. 

   

+41 (second amendment interpretation 22)

The effort to put the clarity to the level of saying "being necessary to the security of a free state" instead of just saying "being necessary" or even "being necessary to a free state" makes it even further away that they used "being" instead of "is" not caring enough about the difference or were more interested in the beauty of their expression. Doesn't this

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

look more beautiful and professional than this

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 

?

+40 (second amendment interpretation 21)

How about this form for the second amendment?

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.

Or this?

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

If they intended those right to be always given and the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part was intended for merely explaining why those rights should always be given then how on earth could one see those forms were not closer to mind than the way they wrote the amendment? It is hard to imagine that for one person speaking on the spot let alone a group of people preparing what they are saying and for making none other than a constitution.

+39 (second amendment interpretation 20)

Looking at all the people here treating "being" as if it was "is" makes you wonder if you just fell from another planet to here. Anyway, it seems that expressing why it is so is not that hard. The reason there is by default a guaranteed continuity with "is" but not with "being" is because "is" speaks about the thing and a thing is always itself. "being" on the other hand, describe the status out and what is out is not guaranteed to stay the same. 

+38

It is not OK for even one day to unnecessarily pass with the right of people to decide for themselves fire arms ownership is taken unjustly from them. Why this issue should be treated like it is the last thing in the universe? The top court needs to wake up and smell this situation being probably a century past due for correction. How long its warming up here should take? It may not need to be alone on this. They could use the mind of the public on specific points wanted to be answered or focused. Any judge there could publish on the web saying I got about a hundred other cases to think about resolving and about 10000 others to select from in a year so I cannot afford anywhere near the amount of time any other person can choosing to concentrate on one issue and if anybody wants to do that on this issue here are the points where I want more concentration or answers. Courts in the past had no such communication option. How much of the huge communication capability of the internet we have is being utilized here?         

+37 (second amendment interpretation 19)

The opinion of the court suggests the theory that the amendment could be about the mere existence of the militia. But they did not drive the operative part from the militia. Instead they drove the operative part from the role of the militia. If they wanted the mere existence of the militia they could have driven things directly from the militia ("necessary" instead of "necessary to the security"). 

But they did not leave it at that.They then connected that role, using "being", to the status of the existence of the militia not the militia itself and left the militia squeezed in the middle. They took away the guaranteed automaticity then they took away the guaranteed continuity. So how could one after that see the militia as being itself the purpose not the medium?   

+36 (second amendment interpretation 18)

Answering the argument that the operative clause could be more than what satisfies the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state, in empowerment, comes through two dimensions. The first is the obvious one involving going into what they meant by "necessary". The second dimension is more direct because it involves our own understanding to what necessary means. Because if there is reasoning in that part of the amendment, why should we stop short of including the definition of necessary in it?

+35 (second amendment interpretation 17)

It doesn't come easily seeing a person not taking account that part could be modifying or controlling the operative part feel inclined to go to such details. But lets assume they did that to highlight the importance of that reason in order to make sure that they did all they can do to make the operative part gets implemented as it deserves. But then, how would that fit with taking the risk of inserting the whole none executory part in a constitution, especially something like this part and in a concise and direct to the point constitution like this? Did it occur to them that people may need such enlightenment but still escaped them the risk of how much could that part be taken as modifying or controlling the operative part affecting its execution?    

+34 (second amendment interpretation 16)

The point in post 32 would still stand even if the added details explain some unclear purpose. But here what emphasizes even more the executory purpose behind that part instead of just being an explanation for an unchanging state, is that the additional detail provided ("to the security of a free state") as a purpose is hardly a hidden thing. Even if we suppose speaking about "a free state" to point out the need to protect freedom as being unclear enough to worth such an enlightenment effort, that part between the first two commas could still have been made as "being necessary to a free state". Why the need to pinpoint the purpose like this unless one wants to carefully direct an execution related to that part?

            

+33 (second amendment interpretation 15)

It is hard not to imagine somebody writing this constitution to comeback and say looking at the situation of this amendment: So this is the part that stopped you in what we wrote? The part we explained our intention and purpose almost or totally like no where else in the constitution?

Very much magnifying that is how they stopped and froze at a part that is dependent on changes in technology and science, the one part where change was light years away from being comparable to changes in any other part in human life. 

Notice that even the risk or the consequences of the court being on the wrong position are not equal on both sides. If the current position of the court is wrong then with that it closes any opportunity for legislators of any "free state" to make the correct decision for itself. On the other hand, clearly, legislators of any "free state" can give rights equivalent to those in the amendment even if the court take the position that it is no longer applicable.  

+32 (second amendment interpretation 14)

In addition to the use of "being" to point out the externality of a fact and how that fits with the simple understanding for the purpose of the operative clause as being for better empowerment, we find another thing showing the intention of leaving the applicability of the operative clause to be dependent on the facts outside. That other sign presents itself in the level of details in saying "being necessary to the security of a free state" instead of just "being necessary". Wouldn't saying just that later version be sufficient if there were no intention to leave that for measuring and applying on the changing facts?

By the way, my calling for part of the amendment as the operative clause has to do with it being the end result when applicable. But if we want to call the part that is always executed of the amendment with that name then things would be reversed.       

+31 (second amendment interpretation 13)

continuing from the preceding post

And even if someone wants to ignore that technicality in the meaning of being arguing that it can be used as an artistic expression to state always as a fact, how wise is it to use that in a constitution? How much there is a probability that the framers were willing to take such a risk? What other part of the constitution suggests them being that careless in the expression of their intentions? Even for just that amendment how does it fit the claim that the first part was just for clarification stating always as a fact in such a confusing way?   

+30 (second amendment interpretation 12)

The word "being" is always directly about the current status only. But based on the type of thing to which it refers, the listener may infer that it means always. Even assuming that being the purpose here, making the listener infer that, in itself, conflict with, or even contradict being used to impose a fact.      

+29 (second amendment interpretation 11)

The way the second amendment was interpreted here, especially the ignoring of how "being" opens the door that a status can change, provides a scary example of how one may interpret things based on psychological motivation or purpose far away from reality and facts. It is almost like a psychotic level of denial and/or delusion.

What psychological motivation or purpose you ask? I think it is the desire to establish identity (or what I used to call the identity complex) which worked it way this time through acting to this outrageous level as if you remain the same and do not change.

This thing I have been calling the identity complex seems as if it is an elephant in every room in this country. However, be careful that this could be a shallow diagnosis. In other words, I could be like the person who sees a man enters a place then leaves carrying a box.I could say that man wanted the box even though what he really wanted could have been what was inside that box.    

+28 (second amendment interpretation 10)

Despite what I have been writing here, don't make the mistake of thinking that the second amendment needs anything more than the simple normal understanding. How could a court see things like the segregation and prohibiting homosexuality as unconstitutional but fail at this? I don't know any non psychological reason for that.     

It is as simple as this: Assume your boss tells you (and I am borrowing this from a similar example in the Linguistic Brief):

James, being away from here, no work on the project should be done.
Or
James being away from here, no work on the project should be done (without the first comma).

A little later you see James. Would you then continue to think that no work on the project should be done? Would you think that your boss intended what he said to be taken over reality? I don't think so.

In fact your boss could have said: 

Because James is away from here... 

and you still wouldn't take that as being intended to be taken as a fact over reality.

However, the poor people who wrote the constitution even avoided this later form and you still managed to falsely accuse their intention for what could be close to a century now.      

+27

Despite how little sense the way the second amendment was followed in this country makes to me, still, those who argue that there should be no death penalty, and not because of the issue of the certainty of the guilt, to me, speak tongue. However it is the much bigger effect of the first matter that makes me prioritize it.

Not only the "cruel and unusual punishment" in the constitution has nothing to do with the death penalty for killers, it has nothing to do with an eye for an eye system in general. Aside from other things, if it is, why does the fifth amendment speaks about jeopardy of "limb"?

The good news is that the world is now relatively much better in accounting for victims regardless of their color, religion, gender and the like. The bad news is that much of what was abandoned there got replaced by even stupider argument to waste the rights of victims. Actually, it could be even closer to contradictory than stupid. It is an argument that is much more from its face logically intolerable because it prefers aggressors over victims merely because of being in those positions.        

+26 (second amendment interpretation 9)

Also notice that they did not point directly to the fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Instead, they pointed to the externality of that fact by their use of "being". In case that is not sufficient by itself to show a call for dependency on external factors based reasoning, we have its fit with how directly obvious the operative clause's fact that arms empower militia suggesting with the level of externality it shows that being the purpose. In other words, they talked about the externality of the situation and they also brought something very directly obvious as the connection of arms to empowerment. 

  

+25 (second amendment interpretation 8)

Notice that, unlike the case had they used "is" to speak about the militia itself, the side alleging continuity in the meaning of "being" is the one with the burden of proof.  

+24 (second amendment interpretation 7)

The first comma seems to show that they were talking about that time and through that imply different world could lead to different results. Another view seems to have went exactly contrary to that purpose by suggesting that the purpose is to separate the part between the first two commas as always true. But if it is the later, why did they use "being" to speak about the status of the existence of the militia in the world instead of directly about the militia itself? 

Notice that the purpose of stating that the necessity of a militia is not dependent on the type or kind of militia can fit as part of the purpose mentioned at the beginning above.

+23 (second amendment interpretation 6)

The being of a militia is part of the being of the world. So, when I look at the word "being" there, the least I think the second amendment itself gives us the right to do is to judge if the being of the world had sufficiently changed in matters related to the security of a free state. Then if the answer is yes, we can proceed to judge the question about the necessity of the militia for our time. If the answer to that question is that the militia is no longer necessary, in the sense meant in the amendment, then no longer a constitutional right to keep or bear arms exist. 

+22 (second amendment interpretation 5)

Some may already took this into account. It could be that I did not need to use "for" in the alternatives I stated in post  20 and could have written them as:

A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
or
Being necessary to the security of a free state, a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

+21 (second amendment interpretation 4)

Even assuming it is sufficiently probable that a constitutional amendment could include teaching, how often one could see two big matters (the militia and the right to bear and keep arms) crammed in one sentence like this unless there is a dependency between the two?

+20 (second amendment interpretation 3)

One may need not to miss focusing on how it is the whole "being necessary to the security of a free state" that connect to the operative part of the amendment. It is that status of being for the militia that connects directly to the operative part not the militia itself. For the later, even if we include an intention to merely teach a purpose, it could have sufficed to say: 

For a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

One also could have included all the alleged teaching in the amendment in its current form and said:

Being necessary to the security of a free state, for a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  

19

I simply find it hard to continue tolerating how this issue is being treated like it is the last thing on the whole earth in importance in this country.  

+18 (second amendment interpretation 2)

In addition to how a constitution is a document of directives not teaching, an amendment take things even further away from the purpose of teaching because it is about some required change. The writing style of the rest of the amendments also does not encourage one to see the part before the operative part as just simply there to explain the benefit of a militia. If that was the intention then writing the two parts as separate sentences would have provided much better clarity for the purpose. Where else in the constitution the intention was expressed in such a confusing way? Also, if that is the intention why use "being"? Wouldn't an arrangement like A well-regulated militia, a necessary (entity/ body/ structure..etc) to the security of a free state, the rights.... If it is part of the mere existence of a militia that it is necessary to the security of a free state why express it that way? In other words, if it is an unchanging fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state why speak about the status of the existence of the militia instead of speaking about it directly?

+17

Frankly speaking, if I were the one who made the second amendment and I come back to see that a court interpreted it by an opinion like that of the majority of the Supreme Court in district of Columbia vs. Heller, I would look for another court to sue the first one for fraud.

+16 (second amendment interpretation 1)

I once read a joke about somebody who responded to saying that bridges get built for people to walk over them by saying: No, they are built for water to pass under them. Based on the second amendment opinion of the Supreme Court in 2008, that person could be any one of the justices who had made or agreed with that opinion. First it seems to suggest an outrageously strange interpretation making the purpose of the second amendment like tagging instead of empowering by bearing arms. Actually, even tagging does not fit because tagging aims at making the world know the tagged person and is not needed to make that person know his role like how the 2008 opinion suggests arms serve the purpose of preventing dismantling the militia. The 2008 opinion seems to make it by itself a sufficient purpose behind the operative part of the second amendment what could have been replaced with giving everybody a shirt with the word "militia" written on it except that the framers chose the arms for that purpose.   

Second, if that was not enough, in order to make it fit the opinion apparently took the role of the "being necessary" part as merely a clarification for the importance of a militia in general which is the constitution, especially a concise one like this, being a document of do and don't has no business of getting into. 

On the other hand, understanding the purpose of the amendment as being empowerment by bearing arms and understanding the "being necessary" part as a role for the militia, instead of just a description, and how much that makes that part explains the purpose of the operative part all fit nicely with each other and with the constitution as a document of directives and much less about teaching.  

+15

I know it is hard to resist, but how much this looks like the ultimate king of all too little too late situations should be more of a reason for working hard on the issue instead of relaxing.

+14

This second amendment interpretation is really standing on nothing and I feel pain for losing all that time instead of continuing the argument against it. A precious time that could have been used to start changing the situation in this country. So why did I leave things that long? Because my intention when I started writing about this issue was just to relieve the moral responsibility that could come from not pointing out this bad unjust way of living. But then I found some attention so I continued. I stopped mainly to look into myself regarding how much of my intention was for God or Goodness which I failed or was too lazy to do (Although it is better to stop a bad thing for whatever intention than letting it go). It is a disgrace to me to be thought of as anywhere near seeing the situation in this country which looks like a modern way of giving human sacrifices as normal or acceptable (Although I have been trying hard to separate discussing gun ownership as a legislative law issue from that as a constitutional law which has a strong argument that the second amendment had stopped a long time ago from giving a right to gun ownership even if you believe that gun ownership is the best thing in universe).       

+13

Is there any nation on earth stands upside down like this one? They imposed thirteen years of prohibition of alcohol but never minded the existence of guns. Alcohol is prohibited like poison in Islam but I would still have said are you crazy? Get the guns.

Then what does it say later to have the desire to drink leads to changing a constitution amendment but the need and morality of not living careless about the choiceless gun victims like one of the, real or fiction, old human sacrificing societies, cannot?     

+12

One may need to pay attention not to confuse the issue of Guantanamo as that of being about the location of the prison in itself. The problem with being outside the country is that a different standard of justice is allowed there. Justice is something one need to seek at the best level he can and is not something that one can fashion to his taste. Therefore there should be one standard of justice at least from the entity making of the standard.

However, I emphasise again, that prison is much better than forcing expelling the residents to worse places. 

+11

For those who choose waterboarding I say, aside from the issue of having a standard that does not allow torture, if you waterboard somebody and it turned out that he was innocent or really does not have the information you were looking for then justice requires that you should be waterboarded even if you are the president of the United States.

+10

I want again to echo that it is neither just nor acceptable and very degrading to us to force the indefinite holding on human beings like farm animals as it is the situation in Guantanamo. I came from a dictatorship and therefore I am familiar with what would make me surprised if even ten percent of what is called secret evidence here really deserve to be secret. After all, remember how Bin Laden's videos where not supposed to be aired in their entirety because of fear he could be communicating coded messages? Actually even with conducting trials here the issue remains of, as it was with the alleged marathon bombers, how can you claim somebody being the enemy of the country and still try him inside that same country?

Nevertheless, being held there is still better than being forced to go where there is unjust and torture.

+9

Although dealing with this issue is more difficult, I also still keep remembering the question I asked before regarding the requirement of a beyond a reasonable doubt proof in alleged self defense cases. The question is if you accept that a mere  reasonable doubt would prevent incriminate the killer aren't you incriminating the killed based on a mere reasonable doubt? If, for example, you do not incriminate A for killing B based on 20 percent probability that his allegation of being attacked by B  is true aren't you at the same time incriminating B despite 80 percent probability of being innocent of what was alleged against him? 

+8

It is also for the same reason below I never understood the argument questioning trials for Guantanamo detainees in courts here because of the rights the system gives to defendants. Again, there is only one justice and you are walking a fine line. So as much as things are unjustly tilted toward the defendant side they would also affect victims in other cases here.

+7

I just want to tell those who put that "premeditation" requirement suppose that God told you through miracles proving to everyone it is God's order that you should rule on people to the best of your judgment without telling you specifically how to rule and that you will be held responsible for the level of your following to that order. I doubt then that you would still believe in no death sentence on a killer even if there were no questions about the guilt, let alone applying something like that "premeditation" requirement if you really want to follow that order. So if you cant apply that there how can you apply it here? There is only one justice. You need to walk a very fine line because justice is not something for you to add as a style for your identity. 

+6

Too bad with all the complements given in yesterday's state of the union address it was not mentioned that no nation in history was this crazy unjust by choice disregarding the issue of killing people like those in the movie theater, or even further from having any choice to avoid being killed like the children in that school, while giving someone who intentionally chooses to point his gun and shoots to death another parson only a partial punishment because the killing was not "premeditated".

Craziness was not even satisfactory here from one side. No, it gets built in layers. First they give a person a device that allows easy killing like the gun. Then they tell him don't worry even if you suddenly feel the urge to use it and kill someone you wouldn't get the punishment of a real killing.  

+5

It is not even about questioning if bad things the victim had done to the killer in the past should affect the punishment. No, the victim could have had absolutely no guilt toward the killer and still killing that victim cannot bring a punishment more than what is allowed under second degree murder designation unless it was "premeditated".Even if one had lost his sense of justice, doesn't he wonder why did its application throughout history conflict with that? After all it is not like murder is something that was recently discovered as a result of development in technology.

.   

+4

One may expect to see a discrimination based on for example religion, gender, color, but for a person to give himself less rights as a victim than as an aggressor, who can expect that? 

+3

Seriously, things like that, from the post below, in this and other countries following similar systems can hardly be seen by an external observer as being expected or anticipated any more than the actions of a totally insane person could be. That is because even if one can expect violating morality, it is still much harder to imagine somebody choosing other than the just path just for the sake of it and without any seen benefit like this.       

+2

It is far from sounding common sense justice to see that the whole life of a victim who was for example shot to death to be worth only a sentencing of 20 years (and I am probably at the high end of the scale for second degree murder sentencing here), let alone the probability of a parole release, of the shooter's life just because he did not Premeditated  the murder, as long as the shooter did his action by choice and with recognition to its potential consequence. Yesterday, I tried to see what arguments are there in support of such distinction between punishments for Premeditated and non-Premeditated intentional (in the sense described above) killing but I did not find anything worthy of special mention or encouraging for more research in that regard. I started to question how widespread this system which the normal senses seems to contradict could be. So I searched for that in the United Kingdom and guess what? It appears that according to the "English Law" they don't have second degree murder there. Instead, according to THIS they have only murder and manslaughter there and there is nothing in the law preventing killing like the one I described above from getting the same sentencing with or without Premeditation. That fits much better with basic sense of justice for actions that are seen as clearly intentional in the normal sense. The addition of premeditation doesn't need to be necessarily treated different than adding another killing charge to what already should receive the maximum sentencing.