+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.