+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.