+97 (second amendment interpretation 70)

Notice that in addition to this big difference in having explanations and seeing how parts of the whole picture fit and complete each other, in comparison with the other side, after proving that in our time the part saying that a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state is no longer true, the burden of proof is on the other side. One may start by saying to the other side:

You cannot ignore "being". 

The other side could respond saying:

Even though I cannot satisfy the burden of proving that "being" was intended beyond its direct status meaning, still the burden of proof that the Arms clause was not intended to always apply, falls on you. Who knows? Maybe they meant to say that because a well regulated militia was necessary at that time, the right to keep and bear Arms should continue forever.

To that one may respond saying:

Aside from the lack of a reasonable connection between the two parts, for that you still should carry the burden of proving that there is still that right to keep and bear arms the Amendment mentioned at the beginning of the Arms clause. That is because the Arms clause of the Amendment said that the right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed. It did not say that the keeping and bearing of Arms should not be infringed. You cannot say that I should carry the burden of proving that right to keep and bear Arms no longer exist. That is because the existence in the Amendment of that right to keep and bear Arms was in combination with the existence of the status of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In other words, that right existed in the Amendment with that status as one whole. Since that right to keep and bear Arms also might have been itself created by the status of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and is dependent on the continuity of that status for its existence, the existence of that right by itself was not established, to begin with, for you to say that I still should prove the discontinuity of that existence when a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is no longer true.