+167

Continuing from the preceding post

How much discrepancy there is in the punishment in the federal criminal law let alone that among the states?

In addition to having better laws as the primary solution  there seems to be a helping thing that could be used federally and also for any state that has in its constitution the power for an entity to pardon and commute sentences. For example, Congress could itself vote or delegate to an entity that could also be of its creation voting on recommending to the President pardoning or commuting the sentence for cases like the one mentioned in the preceding post. In other words, the constitutional power of the President to pardon and commute sentencing can be used to help correct or fine-tune application of the law.

Cases like this where no moral authority is needed to forgive for taking the right of a victim to live, are much more suitable for taking into consideration reducing punishment because of factors that could have affected a person toward choosing the criminal path. At least the victims themselves in the case mentioned in the preceding post for example could have been asked if a punishment like the one that has already passed now is enough as a punishment.   

+166

THIS is the guy to whom I was referring in the preceding post and THIS is his story according to the show.

The guy showed none violent tendency and despite his adventurous risk taking attitude with intolerance to stay in prison. Also his failing to make the girls support his alibi does not support him being a psychopath otherwise he probably would have been better at managing his personal relationships. 

Not much behaviour was reported for his two young accomplices but one could hardly see them as professional criminals with their accentual firing and probably also the way they tried to distance themselves from the situation.

HERE is another link for the sentencing which I am still not clear if it does or does not include the possibility for parole. In any case I wonder how much a behaviour suggesting respecting a line for human life not to be crossed was taken into consideration in comparison with other cases where that line was crossed. 

      

+165

I just watched a TV real story show about a guy who was sentenced to life in prison without parole. While others could kill and get relatively low punishments that gets even lower and lower with additional reasons starting from not being "premeditated" and going on, this guy, although  participated in armed robbery and abduction of the bank teller to do that and escaped multiple times from prison and done another bank robbery, never pulled the trigger on anyone. He was only 19 and who knows how after several years in prison and with genuine reforming effort done to him his character could change if the tendency for crime repetition was the reason for that sentence. So, I don't know how much of that sentencing was because people here see things upside down and how much of it because the guy is black.        

+164

Continuing from the preceding post:

I have just chosen to always moderate before letting a comment published, in order to be informed about the existence of the comment. This means until I read the comment it will not be published. This is the only way I found here to enable finding what comments were posted throughout my blog without actively looking at all my posts. Otherwise I am not inclined to do a censorship. I provided a feed back about the issue and letting a comment wait may not be a requirement to be emailed about its existence in the future.

+163

I have been wondering why with all those in the public agreeing with the stand of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment no body argue back against what I write here. However, I just noticed a little while ago that I had no comment capability by anonymous authors for this blog so I changed that. Now anyone can comment without revealing any identity.   

+162 (second amendment interpretation 118)

Upon reviewing what I wrote in the preceding post, I don't think I should have at this point argued for actively wanting the first comma to state "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a conditional status. That is because the more deserving reason for the first comma still seems to be the one related to prevent this quoted part from carrying a meaning of being about qualifying the kind of militia instead of being about the situation or the environment in general. However, this clearly does not include the argument about the default implication of that first comma for stating an if status. 

+161 (second amendment interpretation 117)

continuing from the preceding post

If we assume intending to avoid stating actuality in the part before the second comma, without the first comma, "being", which is needed to avoid continuity, seems to make that part less fit for the purpose. So we can say that we are doing the best we can. On the other hand, if you want to state an always true fact why would you choose to trap yourself in "being" to begin with?

Instead of taking the first comma as being intended to bring "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a fact, one can take the purpose as intending to bring that as a whole situation. Actually this is what follows directly from the role of the first comma here. It simply divided what otherwise would have been one situation into two changing the connection to a conditional one. The stating a fact view, on the other hand, adds the purpose of intending that separation to state a general fact to comeback and reestablish that connection.

+160 (second amendment interpretation 116)

continuing from the preceding post

Although the other side swims in unfitting things and signs against it, I find it hard to tolerate the appearance of even one. The first comma is more than tolerable to the position of the side demanding from the opposing one showing stating actual existence for the situation described in the part before the second comma. The view that the first comma is intended to state a fact is here countered with the view that it helps expressing the existence of the necessity to the security of a free State as the issue not the merits of that existence. 

+159 (second amendment interpretation 115)

It seems that while discussing whether the part before the second comma is for reasoning or stating a fact, one thing could become easily skipped unnoticed. That thing is about why  that part should be taken as being intended to refer to a real occurrence to begin with? Unlike the part after, the part before that comma by itself does not constitute a complete sentence for it to be taken as referring to the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the actual status at that time. Neither was there a use for a word like "because" to combine that part with the one following it and thereby extend the actual occurrence of the latter to the whole. Instead the part before the second comma was kept clean and undissolved. Without proof of actual occurrence, this leaves only its being a condition (like in an "if" statement) as how the part before the second comma should be taken and that clearly imply reasoning.  

Looking at the part after the second comma as immediately applicable does not necessarily need to be based on directly following it from the part before that comma being intended to refer to actual occurrence. Instead the part after that comma can also follow from applying the part before that comma as a mere condition first. 

That was a cautious approach. But on a second thought, why do we even need to by default accept that the part after the second comma is an actual order? It came with another part without even being the first in that combination to start with its existence. So why cant the Amendment be just telling us that when the part before that comma exist then the part after it also exist (as an obligation)?   
What follows from that is that even the initial applicability of the Amendment is not built into it.

+158

For whatever reason, real or psychological, the final court is not taking Second Amendment cases, why in the mean time it does not tell the lower courts that opinions related to the matter, like that of the Heller case, should be taken as mere arguments and are not required to be followed until further notice?  The additional input from those courts could provide questions to somebody taking a position like mine here while this court can look at both that additional input and its counter arguments. The current situation of having the appellate courts make varying interpretations for how to follow the opinions of this court regarding the Second Amendment should not be confused as allowing those courts to interpret the Amendment according to what they believe from the root. If the court is paused on this matter (even if because of being possessed by some evil spirit) then why not take advantage from this pause throughout all the judicial process not just its last point? I was thinking today why don't I look for how appellate courts were ruling on Second Amendment cases before the Heller case but even that could be just following previous rulings by this court on the matter and far from being the result of original thinking of those courts (Although I realized that the current pause by this court on the matter is probably more of the result of their voting on cases than it is being itself a decision that was agreed upon).      
For us outside, it also needs to be noticed that it is not helping the cause when doing things like, for example, possessing a stun gun but then go to this court complaining of the consequences of a state law against that and make this court find no alternative to save the complaining party except by applying its previous opinions about the Second Amendment while it wants to pause from doing that. In other words, if you believe that the Second Amendment no longer guarantees a right to possession of Arms then that would go both ways, for and against you, even when your state make a decision as  ridiculous as forbidding stun guns but allowing real ones. 

+157: Aggressor Over Victim "Justice System"

It occurred to me a while ago that had somebody told people when they started to find it hard to tolerate an eye for an eye system that this will extend to the issue of a death penalty for the killer, who would have believed him? However, at least here we have the question of doing irreversible thing and  the level of certainty for the guilt. On the other hand there are things that seems to be practiced here and probably other Western Countries that defy justice and provide no justification except probably to serve in creating a group identity. This identity urge seems so strong that, having moved from obvious discrimination, it sought itself a refuge in making nonsensical punishment laws and seeing them like normal things. I am referring to those laws that reduce punishment if the crime was not "premeditated". Not just that they defy the logic of the equality premise from the start, they do it to an astonishing level.  You hear things associating low sentencing numbers with intentional crimes as if it happened between an unequal sides just because a killing was not "premeditated". It is as if those societies had decided to discriminate against themselves giving whoever to be in the aggressor place the privilege. Yet, this nonsensical behaviour is passed on everyday like it is a normal thing.

The only explanation I can see for such deviation from normal behaviour is the establishment of group identity I mentioned above. I previously likened this in my thoughts to the exaggeration of acting as if the whole country is one family. But couple of days ago I noticed how the analogy of a person injuring himself provide a closer path to the issue of identity here. 

Even just from the logical point of view and aside from the question of justice, those in the Western World are severely deluding themselves if they think that all their achievement in science is even close to eclipse  such nonsensical behaiour. 

+156 (second amendment interpretation 114)

It seems like much of my recent posts were about a solved problem because those in the court have preceded me to seeing the final point here and it was something that shouldn't have been missed. I wonder if it is seeing reasoning as the purpose for the part before the second comma through differentiation between connecting to text and connecting to action in it. If so then I personally need more work to see it clearly. Or it could be neither this nor anything that was close to my thoughts. I also need to see more clearly my own talk in recent posts for why the container thing to which I keep referring and the other thing I mentioned about putting existence over what they said in the part before the second comma. 

+155 (second amendment interpretation 113)

In support of what was said in post +151, notice how having, not just the text itself that is before the second comma, but also a container representing existence in which that text was said, is an integral part to stating that part of the Amendment as the reason for the part of the Amendment after that comma. That is because the text there only mention the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the reason even though the reason, pointed at accurately, is the State where a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. But that reference to the State as a container was not supplied in the text. 
If we were not supposed to take the text said in the part before the second comma through a container representing existence originating that text, then that part of the Amendment would have needed to also point out that the militia belong to where it was described as "necessary". For starter, one may think of :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of its free State,...
Or 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State where it belongs,...    
It seems that the Amendment was taken as carrying this meaning even though it is not stated directly in the text. Why would the Amendment stop in its clarification on this point even though it went as far as saying, not just "necessary" or "necessary to a free State" or "necessary to the security", but all the way to "necessary to the security of a free State"? Actually, the more it is argued that no attention was paid while making the Amendment to the gap of having this left out, the more that will also suggest more depth for dependence on the existence originating that text.  

+154 (second amendment interpretation 112)

I want to replace speaking about the "separating words" I mentioned in the preceding post with saying:

The form mentioned there for the Second Amendment would have, contrary to what we have now, a meaning for putting what they say over (control-wise) existence. That is because the use of "because" there could suggest eliminating the separate existence for the part before the second comma by dissolving it in the mixture with the part after that comma through explaining it as the reason for that part.

Calling the use of a comma in such position for merely separate words is probably better reserved for when the words directly around it could construct a different meaning. Related to this, I wonder if, linguistically, "state" would have been open to connect with "the right" on the other side of that comma as a verb here if it were not capitalized.  

I also want to point out here that putting existence at the root permits us to deal with what was said like anything else we hear with regard to separating witnessing from mental opinions and beliefs. It is through this middle layer then one proceeds to take the part before the second comma as reasoning.    

+153 (second amendment interpretation 111)

It is not a rare occurrence for me to get confused in what I myself was saying earlier. The correction in the preceding post was not needed and this may have been already noticed. The part of the Amendment before the second comma is entirely reasoning even for the snapshot taken with "being" and regardless of the intention behind the second comma. That is simply because, as mentioned in post +151, they put existence over what they said in that part. Had they instead used, for example, the "because" form  (Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed), mentioned in the opinion of the court as being equivalent to the Amendment, then that would have put what they said over existence. That is because the second comma would have been at least very open to be understood as for merely separating words not existences and that would have made just stating not reasoning the content of the part before the second comma at least a probable meaning (Although, as mentioned in earlier posts, because of "because", even if existence was seen to be put over what is being said there that would be connecting it to expressing the reason not the reason itself).

One may also notice how much the order of the two parts around the second comma was needed for this. Had they put the reverse of this order then it would have been possible to argue for the content of the part currently before the second comma as being stated not reasoned. (While it is not necessary here, it is interesting how this fits the history of the legislative development of the Amendment. Except for the first version, this order was kept to the end. Also luck, may have added more clarification here because had the two parts of the Amendment been at this order from the beginning then it could be argued that it was left like this unnoticed. But changing that order shows intentional effort suggesting attention. Although, is it entirely out of the question for people like those that it was not luck but they intentionally done that?)           

+152 (second amendment interpretation 110)

Correcting the preceding post, it is actually the connection to that container plus a dependency meaning  for the second comma, are what bring the whole process of generating the meaning of that text in the part before that comma from the root and not just the connection to that container.   
Even if we assume that dependency was not intended for us to reason the connection between the two parts around the second comma it still would not affect that we are required to reason the necessity of the militia to a free State for our time. That is because this requirement comes from the part before the second comma by itself at least from after the snapshot provided with "being" whose continuity is dependent on the existence and does not come from the authority of the constitution.
Having an attachment only by the interface without dependency,  the second comma would be just telling us that the two parts around it come together and "shall" would have only its mere future reference.

+151 (second amendment interpretation 109)

What does the Amendment give us in its part before the second comma? It gives us "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"? Good answer but probably far from being sufficient for people behaving abnormally as it is here with this Amendment. The part before the second comma gives us a container, delimited by that comma, representing the existence in which the quoted text above was said. Therefore what the Amendment give us in its part before the second comma is not just the quoted text above but also the saying of it. By "saying" I don't just mean pronouncing or writing the words of that text. What I mean by that word is the process of generating that text extending from the root of that existence. This is what was meant with words like "active form" and "process" describing the contents of the two parts around the second comma, in the preceding two posts.     

+150 (second amendment interpretation 108)

What has been  just mentioned in the preceding post does not conflict with asking "So what purpose could the attachment of the two parts around the second comma carry other than to present us with a necessity we can understand?" in post +140. What is in the preceding post does not mean that we should not try to find what meaning would result from combining the two parts around the second comma. Instead, it just says that we have no right to cancel their existence as processes while doing that. With regard to implying what was mentioned in the quote above as the only purpose, the second comma here is like the staple that holds two pages in an article together. Looking inside at the content one may ignore the role of that staple in holding those two pages together while preserving their integrity.

+149 (second amendment interpretation 107)

Here is a better view to the Amendment. Starting out, why do we need to focus on the role of the second comma beyond that of bringing the two parts around it together without being part of either of them? Why don't we instead focus on those two parts themselves and realize their complete independence from each other in their existence in the Amendment? By containing no reference to each other, including through things like "because" or "therefore" or "for that reason" etc.,  each one of those two parts protects its active form existence in the Amendment and does not allow becoming dissolved in the resulted mixture. This active existence imply starting from the root of its creation when applying that part. With regard to the part before the second comma this requires going back to find the militia being necessary to the security of a free State at application time. Of course, only when those two parts exist together the part after the second comma would be applicable. 

+148 (second amendment interpretation 106)

Although, like it was said earlier, we are far from needing this measure to argue against the claim of mere clarification for the part of the Amendment between the first two commas, here is another thing, not focusing on "shall" this time, showing how something was taken for its actionable meaning in the constitution despite not calling for that directly. 
It is in the Sixth Amendment. The direct meaning for having (actually they used the word "enjoy") the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" merely says that the accused can make himself informed. But it was taken to require the government to give that information to the accused (at least if he requests it).
It is not just that this kind of direction can happen. It also seems hard to find in the constitution that a risk was taken with actionable meaning potential without intending that meaning. It could be argued against this with how the right to have "the Assistance of Counsel" was not seen to always require the government to appoint a Counsel for the accused. This can be answered by pointing out that applying taking the actionable meaning for the accused having the right to be informed does not begin with recognizing that the government should be the informing entity. Instead it begins from recognizing that the accused should become informed if he wants by any valid way. But since that information is only available to the government it becomes obligated to provide that information if requested. On the other hand many persons can provide Counsels for themselves. 
Notice how approaching the word "right" from the side of having (or being affected by) it had led to understanding that to require enabling having those rights (for example a Counsel to those who cannot afford it). On the other hand having the Second Amendment approaching the word "right" from the side of not taking or infringing on it, does not seem to have led to any interpretation requiring the government to buy Arms to those who want to have Arms but cannot afford them. The latter thing can also be said about the Forth Amendment. It was not understood to require the government to enable people to secure themselves from unreasonable searches. 
Unlike how the other two Amendments focused on what should (or should not) go toward a right, the Sixth Amendment focused on what should come from a right and that connects to the existence of that right. It is not hard to see why that could make the difference above. Focusing on the existence of something in a constitution can be seen as extension to the constitution having creation as its root purpose, and therefore, also imply creation.  
So why should things be different with the Second Amendment and focusing on connecting the two parts around the second comma should not be seen as calling for the creation of that connecting action? Taking "being" in the part between the first two commas as equivalent to "always" would not allow this connecting action because the connection is already created.
Discussing things at this level here feels like using the shadows of things to argue for the existence of the sun.  

+147 (second amendment interpretation 105)

Actually the example related to the Amendment itself in the preceding post is also actionable but not at a direct level like the one generally understood. If we take "shall" there to be about prediction, the purpose of the Amendment could be seen to be about making people see if they agree that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" shall be protected without involvement of the law. 

+146 (second amendment interpretation 104)

Let me add this to post +143. 

Why do we take "shall" in "shall not be infringed" as intended for execution instead of predicting the future? Why cant the whole Amendment be for clarification? Another example that came from a little looking at the constitution is in this "shall" here:

"The Congress shall have Power To..." 

Why cant this be just telling us what will happen instead of what should we make happen in dividing the authority between government branches?

Isn't it that we take "shall" this way because it is in a constitution and has actionable meaning? Then why cant the same thing be applied on the reason in the part before the second comma because of its direct connection with the part after that comma, especially with the additional advantage we have here against that competing clarification meaning of not taking a shorter path to it using words like "because" or "therefore"? 

+145

In thinking I am much more like the slow moving heavy weight lifter than like a good maneuvering ninja or karate guy (tying a shoe is still a challenge to me) and it was far from me to expect learning about such deficiency of mine where the strength of my thinking is supposed to be, in comparison with the focus of those who wrote this Second Amendment and despite how much more time I have.    

+144 (second amendment interpretation 103)

Although what was written at the beginning of post +141 still stands in itself, while I was writing it I myself felt as if I skipped over a closer thing in pointing that as the reason for not including reasoning words like "because" or "therefore" if the purpose was to reason the connection between the parts around the second comma. Now I see that what they said is the closer thing to that purpose to begin with and that those people were more focused and careful in writing a constitution than to confuse connecting with the reason with connecting with the stating of that reason.    

+143 (second amendment interpretation 102)

It is both disappointing and exiting after spending time trying to understand something to find an error close to the thing enough to suggest not taking in that thing itself despite that you thought you did, and in case of a statement you find that you did not really listen to or read it despite that it appeared very obvious that you did. While there is no insufficiency of answers to the argument that the part of the Amendment before the second comma was for clarification only and was not intended to affect execution of the part after that comma, missing this one is a special indication for being contained instead of containing things from the outside . This additional simple answer goes like this:

If the intention was a mere clarification without affecting the execution then why did they connect the part after the second comma with the actual situation itself that was described in the part before that comma instead of at least adding support to such intention by connecting the part after the second comma to stating the reason described in the part before that comma using some of the reasoning words like "because" or "therefore"? In other words, why would they choose to connect the part after the second comma to the reason itself instead of connecting it to stating that reason? So why would I need to assume the addition of another layer that was already in front of the speakers there but they did not take it?
In addition to the issue of taking without proof "being" as "always" to support a theory that the connection of the part after the second comma is with the one before the first comma and that the in between part is just interrupting, such theory should not be allowed to build itself on ignoring that the part after the second comma connect to the part between the first and second commas not through stating it as the reason but directly as the reason. Instead that theory should be required to counter or offset the argument that the connection just mentioned should be taken as it appears. After all, perception of intention should be directed by the content, not the other way around.  

+142

In the preceding post, in case mentioning my missing the capitalization of the word "state" in quoting the Amendment suggests that I criticized the court opinion also for quoting the Amendment incorrectly, that is not my intention. I criticized the opinion of the court for taking "free State" as equivalent to "free State" without even suggesting any theory to explain the capitalization there.    

+141 (second amendment interpretation 101)

Had the Amendment contained words to directly point out reasoning as the purpose, like, for example "because", as in: 

A well regulated militia, because of  its being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people...

instead of this mere association of the part after the second comma with the situation described in the part before it then that would have added support to a different meaning. Taking the word "because" itself as part of the association between those two parts could suggest that the part after the second comma of the Amendment is associated not directly with the situation itself described in "being necessary to the security of a free State" but with its being the reason. That in turn could be understood to refer to just the snapshot taken with "being", without necessarily the continuity of the described situation, as the reason for the part after the second comma. 

As mentioned previously, a similar thing seems to have been done from the receiving end by speaking about a right to keep and bear Arms instead of directly about those actions themselves in the part after the second comma in order to make the association with continuity of the necessity in the part before that comma and not just with reaching the situation described with the "being" snapshot. Also as mentioned previously, the first comma adds support to that by taking the focus away from the militia itself suggesting its not being the purpose. The militia itself being the purpose is one of the most reasonable reasons that could make the part before the first comma understood as being about just reaching that necessity situation.   
I also sometimes find myself in need of bringing my focus back to that the part before the second comma points out the situation and does not create it and therefore it fits the view that "of the people" suggests an old right.
It took me this long of wondering about why the Amendment does not speak directly about reasoning until I realized the first part above. As if I need to add to my shock of seeing things like ignoring "being" or the direct jump in the opinion of the court to take "free State" as "free state" ignoring the capitalization there, with people of such caliber writing a constitution (I used to write the Amendment without that capitalization because I did not notice it).

+140 (second amendment interpretation 100)

When we want to apply the Second Amendment on our time and look at the word "necessary", how should we take its meaning?   How much saying that something is "necessary" is open to be far removed from the current status more than in saying, for example, that something is "big" or Jim is a "doctor"? How much are you open, if you hear somebody says, for example, that a spare tire is "necessary" to a car of his, to include the meaning that, for example, he is truthfully using such expression while knowing that that car will not be used until decades from now?

But the Amendment did not stop there.  It said "being necessary" instead of just "necessary". How often have you seen "being necessary" used to express an untouchable reality at a level that fits an explanation for the necessity of the militia for the security of a free state in our time? What about taking the risk of making such expression in a constitution for something that could be far fetched at this level?  

Moreover, the necessity here was not expressed for itself like the example above. Instead the necessity here was expressed as the reason for the following part ("the right of the people..").  Since, by default, "being" refers to a snapshot status and not a continuous one (because that is its direct meaning), that means the beginning part does not talk about a fact that is always true. So what purpose could the attachment of the two parts around the second comma carry other than to present us with a necessity we can understand? You have to find a real necessity not a real perception of a necessity that existed back then for our time. We are responsible about the reality of necessity not the perception of the makers of the Amendment (Not that I saw a wrong perception from those people. I am just talking about theorizing). The necessity expressed in the first part of the Amendment should continuity in order for the application of the Arms clause to continue. 

It is interesting to see that taking the purpose of the first part of the Amendment as merely explanatory would require that "being" was used as "always". But even if we allow ourselves to jump without proof to take "being" to be intended to imply "always" then that would even more directly lead to a touchable necessity. That is because the way with which "being" can express such meaning, if any, is an indirect one by making the listener infer that meaning from its (the listener's) knowledge that the status to which "being" refers is an unchanging one at least according to what the speaker believes. For example, one could try to make the listener infers that crossing the R river would always take time by saying : The R river being wide, its crossing takes time through dependence on the knowledge of the listener that the width of a river does not change.    

While some parts here could apply to both, my focus was on the level of direct meaning of "necessary" which is beyond taking "necessary" at the "container" reference meaning level talked about previously.     

+139

I hope that enough attention is given to that the similarity of my positions toward two different issues here is not being seen as taking those two issues as one. There isn't a bit of direct contradiction in, for example, agreeing that the Second Amendment does not guarantee gun ownership right in our time, on one hand, while believing in granting that legislatively, on the other. Except with the 14th Amendment incorporating issue which I felt does not leave enough room for that, I generally try carefully to separate my talk about the two.

+138: ARE YOU REALLY PRO SECOND AMENDMENT?

I just want to know if those who call themselves "pro Second Amendment", and the like, would still be pro Second Amendment if they get convinced that it does not give a right to firearms ownership in our time? Or is that being used just as a fancy and more appealing way to say that they are pro gun ownership? This term is so hijacked that I honestly feel it more probable that I can use the word "jihad" for other than how it is generally taken here than I can say that "I am pro Second Amendment" and have that taken to include the meaning mentioned above.   

+137: THE WORLD AS A JURY

I once saw two judges from the final court seem to take different sides on the issue of taking or learning things from some places elsewhere in the world. I think we need here to distinguish between two things: Taking things at the sophisticated level of thinking and taking things at the level of basic recognition and comprehension. My concern here is the latter. Contrary to how my position regarding the Second Amendment here hardly seems substantially shared, I still wish to go in a worldwide expedition testing how people naturally understand the Amendment and if that would fit my position or that of the others here. How much of the world speak English either as first or second language? And it is not like we are reading Shakespearean text here. I would not speak about who had taken what position here. I would just put the audience at that environment and time and see how the Amendment would be taken. I think that this issue here would not only be decided to my side but that the majority would be overwhelming enough to point out the distinction between normal and abnormal comprehension here.            

+136: The scary inhibition inside

I generally cook every day and for some internal psychological reason/representation it has to take me considerable time no matter what I am preparing. I gradually started to pay closer attention to my behavior and have been discovering how much of it is unexplainable. I saw astonishing things like interlacing freezing for no reason. Actually, I don't know how much of that should be expressed as seeing new things and how much of that as seeing the absence of a reason for what I already saw before. I also saw how much conscious effort and standing will it takes me to change this behaviour. Things started with just noticing myself taking much time here. Now, everyday the scary thought comes to me about the unreasonable freezing and inhibitions the judges of the final court would have also discovered about their behaviour in taking the Second Amendment had it been also something that has new occurrence every day and they are as much in contact with it like I with my daily cooking.     

+135 (second amendment interpretation 99)

If you point at some place where there are several objects and say look at that thing wouldn't your reference be taken to what has the most protruding reason to be the target? What is the most protruding reasoning with regard to the keeping and bearing of Arms in the connection the Second Amendment presented to us? Is it anything other than the comparative empowerment with the outside which Arms brings during that time? So, shouldn't that be taken as the level of fulfillment to which "necessary" refers? 

Moreover, the snapshot the use of "being" presents encourages using this approach.     

+134 (second amendment interpretation 98)

In the preceding two posts, to say that having the first comma taking the focus away from the "well regulated militia" part, leads to that the purpose is the "security of a free State" which the militia was necessary to provide and not the militia itself, is one thing, but what I sought was more ambitious than that. I wanted to strengthen my position with showing how "necessary" was applied by taking advantage of how presenting the parts around the second comma, if the connection was intended to be direct, and I am very inclined to see it that way, imply counting on seeing the obvious thing that Arms were needed to satisfy the necessity of the militia with the comparative empowerment it brings. However it seems that by making the claim that having the focus taken away with the first comma prevents stating the importance of the militia as intermediate purpose, I made a general wrong statement that can be proven as such by so many examples. One person could for example say to another That restaurant, being so big, lets eat there expecting better service there and not because of any desire to make use of its additional space.   
I need to put more thinking to make sure if there is a possibility where the Amendment has stating the importance of the militia as intermediate purpose but the main purpose is the security not the militia itself or that I am just confusing the existence of such a third possibility. 
By the way, again, seriously discussing things here shouldn't be taken to mean that there are serious questions to discuss and I cannot avoid the thought that people behaving normally here would not feel any need for this.     

+133 (second amendment interpretation 97)

continuing from the preceding post

The first comma transferred the focus from the well regulated militia itself, through the status of its existence, to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So what confusing thing the poor speakers here had done to make their intention more difficult to understand than in, for example, saying Jim, being a doctor, you should see him for your headache in that it is the headache (or the dealing with it) that is the focus not Jim himself?

I put the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in quotation marks above in order to denote speaking only at the parsing level to the sentence there and avoid the implication that right has independent existence from the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state.

+132 (second amendment interpretation 96)

What is holding the court here? Shouldn't we understand the parts before and after the second comma (by default I always talk about the congress version) in a way that makes sense of why that connection was made to us? Taking things this way very clearly fit things in my direction. But could it be that there is a view here that a purpose of expressing the importance of the militia through the purpose stated for it in the first part prevents direct connection between those two parts around the second comma? Such understanding implies that the purpose of expressing the importance of the militia is the final purpose for the part speaking about its necessity. Does the level of focus on the intended purpose throughout the whole constitution give any indication that two purposes could be pushed confusingly like this into each other for us to see that this Amendment has two final purposes like that (the importance of the militia in addition to the right to keep and bear Arms)?

Lets go to the technicality of how the Amendment was written. 

Although it starts with "A well regulated militia", following that with the first comma immediately took the focus away from it. Then in the second part the focus was placed on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and stayed there to the end. So how could one see that separate purpose in stating the purpose of the militia when the focus was taken away from the militia like that?

Yes, earlier, I, with insufficient accuracy for the discussion here, spoke about the purpose of the first comma as being to focus on all militias equating that with the purpose of not focusing on specific militia and did not take into account the passive path in expressing the resulted generality.     

+131 (second amendment interpretation 95)

It is both by default and also the stronger case that the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the creator of the right described in the Arms clause as the "right of the people". So if the latter is taken to refer to an already existing right, what is left here except to answer the question of whether we have a militia necessity that gives a right to keep and bear Arms and if the answer is no then the Arms clause of the Amendment is no longer applicable?   

+130 (second amendment interpretation 94)

Seems like I, in the preceding post, incorrectly tried to correct or improve myself for the earlier one. The precedence is important. Had the Amendment started with the Arms clause one could by default assume that the word "right" exists as part of the speaker setup for the reason not the reason itself.

+129 (second amendment interpretation 93)

I want to replace the "logical sequence" and "precedence" part of preceding post with simply saying that because the necessity of the militia clause was stated as the reason for the Arms clause, every existing thing in the latter should be taken as the creation of the former unless proven otherwise.  

+128 (second amendment interpretation 92)

Related to post +125, one could ask: Still if we take "necessary" to what fit our time, would that mean any kind of necessity would activate the Arms clause of the Amendment?

Luckily, we have the other container reference, the word "right", to help us here. The necessity of the militia part of the Amendment and the Arms clause are not separate statements. Instead, they have a logical sequence imposed by the comma separating them in which the existence of the necessity of the militia has the precedence because it is the cause for the other part. This means everything in the Arms clause from the point of its existence should be taken to have been created by the necessity clause unless proven otherwise. So in addition to how much the necessity of the militia being the generator of "the right" mentioned in the Arms clause is the better fit, we also have it as the default path. The "of the people" following the word "right", suggests telling us that right should follow from being a natural consequence to the necessity of the militia and not because we are told it should follow the necessity of the militia. In addition to this, I still don't see, even when there is a necessity for the militia, why the word "right" should be taken to necessarily imply the existence of a right, to begin with. If it is said: The season being winter, the snow should be removed, does that imply there would necessarily be snow in winter?

Having the necessity of the militia from the kind that itself leads to a right to keep and bear Arms answers the question mentioned at the beginning above. 

      

+127 (second amendment interpretation 91)

The theory of the court is more like a punchline for the Amendment if it were intended to be one of those jokes that makes you assume the more obvious or prominent thing with its setup then surprise you with a different outcome, than it is an interpretation. 

+126 (second amendment interpretation 90)

As if had the Amendment came as only The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed without any, lets use the court's word, "clarifying", for why, one could have the choice not to follow the constitution here. So why would they add a clarifying part except for additional clarification? If so then how would that fit a purpose like that suggested by the theory of the court despite how much it is eclipsed by a much more obvious one? They could have much better permitted taking things at the level of such possibility into consideration by omitting that addition instead.

Although the theory of the court was answered with the assumption of it being true, that theory is too weak to have wasted on it how much the comparative level of empowerment suggested by the Arms clause fits a non secondary role for the militia in relation to the security of a free State.

+125 (second amendment interpretation 89)

But do we even need to discuss what they meant with "necessary" and if it was intended to include secondary roles? Why cant we see things from the level pointed at where what defines "necessary" is what was included under "being", which as pointed out earlier has continuity based on the object remaining in its status and not directly from the authority of the constitution, not just the application of that definition. If someone points at a container, then as much as it is reasonably acceptable shouldn't the first priority meaning be given to that that person meant the container itself and that what linked the meaning to what happened to be in it at that moment? Here there is what maybe described as at least very competitive meaning that necessary was left for us to apply it based on our honest judgement.   

+124

I just noticed that instead of myself doing the searches I mentioned in post +121, I can create news alerts. So I replaced those nine news searches with nine news alerts after finishing one search batch which took me an hour or more.

By the way, why don't judges allow themselves to communicate as freely outside the oral argument environment as they do inside? Why, with all the communication power the internet provides, there cant be the equivalent of that in writing? Why cant a judge declare that he is writing with quarrying the other side attitude and self scrutiny level of an oral argument and proceed as such? As much as he can show timely fitting reaction to the answer here as that in the oral argument environment as much as there is less reason to obligated the self to act differently between the two environments. With modern communication means, what difference doing an argument orally has except that it puts one on the spot?     

+123 (second amendment interpretation 88)

In addition to how one may wonder about "necessary" being used for a secondary thing, one may also ask if that was the case then why pinpoint the "security" ? A militia could also make a significant difference responding to natural disasters for example?Why not instead just say "necessary" or "necessary to a free state" to strengthen the case with those significant additions? 

Also look at how the pre-final version of the Amendment said "being the security". This seems very clearly referring to a full role. And if "necessary" was added to allow for a secondary role then that could have better been expressed as "necessary for" instead of "necessary to" to strengthen that purpose by pointing at an already existing security regardless of its level. Moreover, that would not fit the essentiality  direction mentioned in post +119. If that was the purpose then why did it need to wait for the intermediate "being the security" stage instead of happening directly after the "being the best security" stage in the development of the Amendment.

While I may not be always able to bring myself to care about quotes from here and there showing how some people at that time took the Amendment, I find it very hard to ignore the development in its drafting. I think it is the most essential thing after the Amendment. Actually, saying "after" may not be accurate because the development in drafting can be seen as the root of the Amendment itself. I couldn't see the argument for the court expressing such thing as "dubious". In any case it said that in relation to its theory that the Amendment was codifying right originating from other reason(s) which is clearly was contested here.

By the way I looked for a more detailed drafting history but the link I mentioned in post +119 is the best I have found yet.        

+122 (second amendment interpretation 87)

While other people may take very seriously into account excusing authors based solely on what is minor in being unforeseen compared to this literally unbelievable change between then and now with the Second Amendment, the poor authors here actively limited their talk to their status using "being" and it still did not save them.

Make no mistake about it that this is pure denial. People are not really discussing this Amendment here. They are just playing games and deceiving themselves consciously or unconsciously. I bet on the sanity of a discussion of this among people from elsewhere under the effect of drugs much more than I bet on that in the discussion among the judges of the Supreme Court here.       

+121

Until I declare stopping or changing that, from now on, I intend to, at least once every week, do a Google news search writing "Second Amendment Justice judge's last name" on everyone of the nine judges at the final court, looking for new material from them telling us what is holding them here. 

+120 (second amendment interpretation 86)

As if it is not enough that no argument was given for why should the meaning of "being" be extended beyond its direct status reference. Look at how in the section and article mentioned in the preceding post "being" was there from beginning to end of developing the Amendment. If it was just a form of expression why no attempt was made to change it? With all the effort put to express things, as shown in the changes in expressions mentioned in the preceding post, among other things, and with attention at the level of adding a comma or changing a semicolon to a comma, why no body said: Hey guys, somebody could confuse this "being" to mean that we are referring to only our status?
What also deserves a special mentioning in this regard is why would they worry about the government using the "religiously scrupulous" part but do not worry about "being" gets used by future governments to tell people this is not about your time if "being" was intended to mean "always"?   

+119 (second amendment interpretation 85)

Take a look at the section titled "Conflict and compromise in Congress.." in THIS article about the Second Amendment. It provides a valuable drafting history for the Amendment. When I first looked at the earlier versions of the Amendment I worried about how saying "being the best security" would weaken my argument that "the right of the people" refers to the right created by the reason given at the preceding part of the Amendment. But then I recognized how much, instead, the direction of the development of the Amendment supports my side. "being the best security" was changed to "being the security" which in turn was changed to "being necessary to the security", more and more to the direction that justifies that as a reason for a right to keep and bear arms.  

+118 (second amendment interpretation 84)

Continuing from post +116 

And don't forget that all that clarification did not come within in a Because a militia is.. form. Instead it came within the being form which, because it points at the object at the current time only, provides no continuity directly from the authority of the constitution. The continuity here is dependent on our judgment that the object is still in that status and therefore requires understanding the connections in that part in order to apply it.   

+117

Even if I had recognized how much the situation here is like those in stories of human sacrifice societies and had seen the Amendment and wanted to argue for its interpretation at the time of the Heller case in 2008, there is no way I could have imagined that the court would come up with the theory suggested in its opinion in order to take into account answering it.  

It may not be the only way, but this is one of the problems the method of preliminary view for court opinions I mentioned elsewhere could solve . I generally view this method for the benefit of judges. The fact that a judge is the final decider does not need to come at the cost of being in a position with a potential of significant lacking of information. Why should it be that a litigant gets all the input of the judge but not vice versa? That question becomes even more important considering how often the judge is the layman in the field of the litigant.        

+116 (second amendment interpretation 83)

I just noticed that in trying to answer the theory in the opinion of the court I dealt with the Amendment as if it did not say "to the security". So even just directly from this, how would the theory of the court stand? If the purpose of the Amendment does not include empowerment and it was not dependent on the existence of sufficient power, how would preserving the militia leads to security? Should one assume a magical connection to that in that "clarifying" part of the Amendment? The Amendment could have said "..necessary to a free state, the right.." or even just "..necessary, the right.." and that part could lead to ambiguation more than clarification if the purpose of the Amendment was as it could be according to the theory of the court. So how about missing as direct connection as that?  

+115

Continuing from the preceding post:

I would very much prefer to give higher credit to myself for differing here instead of saying that others are acting abnormally but unfortunately there is no way I can convince myself of that. The Second Amendment is a well defined expression and shouldn't have subjected to what it was subjected here. It is to me so much so that I honestly feel much less confidence in myself that even with exhausting effort I can prevent other than what I meant taking to something I may say. This is coming from a person who once tried to correct others for suggesting a problem with applying the Second Amendment here before seeing the Amendment which he had to drag himself to do despite how easy the task is because of how much he was not expecting it would worth the effort.
   

+114

I want to point out again that despite my discussion about interpreting the Second Amendment here, I am light years away from missing how the behavior of the court regarding this matter screams loudly psychological issue.

One could have seen that easily even through strong rationalization. So how about when the court does not show any ground for its position or reason for its difficulty here?

+113

An alternative theory to some of what is in the preceding post would be that the court simply wants to keep as much as possible only the level needed for the person in applying the Second Amendment until it finishes reviewing its position on interpreting it. In order to do that it has taken one general view across all kind of Arms for a risk (to others) to benefit evaluation. Therefore it may choose to grant a stun gun or knife case but may deny a case with similar arguments for guns.

+112

Although I haven't read the opinion of this court in reversing the Massachusetts stun gun restriction, I think that the writer HERE did not get it right. The effect of the Second Amendment on this court sounds like that scene from Star Wars where somebody kicks and gasps for air because of being lifted from his neck although you cant see how the other guy is doing that to him. However, its granting or not granting related cases may have much less to do with seeing or not seeing the actions of the other courts as a "slap in the face". While this court is taking time reviewing itself on the Second Amendment it may pause from applying its established rulings leaving the stage for lower courts to step in to fill the gap and do what they think their duty calls on them to do. But this pause by this court probably comes from the morality issue of the probability of its being wrong there and not just the probability of being wrong in itself. So when it sees that the continuity of its ruling is what is more on the moral side then it may use the path of continuity in applying its already established precedent until it gets changed. The same probability of being wrong that may have caused the court not to grant other Second Amendment cases until it decides on a position, could also be the reason to grant this case to reverse what was seen as an imbalanced position toward stun guns until that decision.  

By the way, how often does it happen that minority dissenting judges would continue those same dissents later on applying the ruling they had dissented its making for this writer to be wondering about its absence here? 

+111 (second amendment interpretation 81)

Even though it was not the main thing for understanding the Amendment, not understanding why "the right of the people" was used made me wonder about how that could fit as an expression for the right being recognized. The other side on the other hand apparently found it easier to jump the assumption of self sufficiency to go and look for other reasons for the existence of that right instead of ways of expressions justifying that use. More astonishingly, they did that despite how the combination with the preceding part would lead to a meaningless statement. For me, the guidance of the preceding part of the Amendment  made me far away from even thinking that others could have depended on the use of "right of the people" as the foundation for their interpretation of the Amendment. It was relatively very recently that I recognized  this as the position of the court after being confused for so long with describing "self-defense" in the opinion off the court as "central component of the right itself", by combining that foundation with the attempt implied in this description to make meaning of that foundation combined with preceding part of the Amendment.  

Anyway, even if we take finding no answer for the use of  "the right of the people" as justifying the creation of such a strange meaning, now that we see a very valid use for that expression by paying attention to the difference of when the right was recognized from when it existed, that difficulty in creating a meaning with the other view points us to the understanding just mentioned as the answer. As an analogy, assume a person being told to use the exit to go out while he is in a room where he cant see but walls and therefore interpreted  that some of the walls might be an exit. But then after he suddenly recognized the existence of a door, would he still continue  to have the exit through the walls as a probable interpretation?   

110

The word "fabrication", in the preceding post, might have been the wrong way to express the abnormality of the opinion of the court. In any case, its use there has nothing to do with intention and merely intended to express more rootless creation in contrast with over extending something.   

109

Although I have no desire to do it for a personal reason, I am thinking of calling myself the Second Amendment guy. Why? In order to counter this wide spread tendency for the Second Amendment to be taken for granted to give a right to have firearms. People very easily and without any hesitation or thinking use "I am pro Second Amendment" in order to convey that they are pro a right for firearms.      

Even though it is a minor thing relative to the continued effect of taking lives, the injustice inflicted on the makers of the Amendment with all the accusations and the reckless way what they said has been taken, could be enough by itself to make one to try to counter that.To begin with, if it is not already there, I do not know how much closer one can get to fabrication from interpretation than the Supreme Court here.         

+108

How long has the Second Amendment been due for correction in applying it? Eighty? Ninety? More than hundred years? Still there is a huge difference between more than hundred years and more than hundred years and one day when it comes to returning the right of the people to decide for themselves a matter that could make that much difference between life and death.  

+107 (second amendment interpretation 80)

Even without seeing where the word "right" came from, if this was the excuse for not applying the Amendment correctly, it is a common thing to see such use just as a redundancy for that word without intending it to change anything. You say that maybe true in everyday talk but a constitution shouldn't be taken as if it was made in a shallow or careless way like that? Why then wasn't this same view applied on the word "being"? Taking the word "being" like how a word in a constitution should be taken eliminates, through its precedence in the Amendment, any dependency on understanding why the word "right" was chosen in the following clause, when it comes to the issue of continuity in applying the Arms clause on subsequent time. 

Or was it that "the right of the people" was taken as the starting position and the rest of the Amendment was brought to fit an absolute understanding of that phrase and a comma before "being" was seen sufficient to push it away from its meaning at the root but the entire part before that phrase was not able to suggest the dependency of that "right"? That of course is in addition to having a ratified version without comma before "being".