+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.