+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.