+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).