+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".

+106 (second amendment interpretation 79)

Also related to post 104, I think that I need to be more accurate in expressing both my answer and what I am answering. I am arguing against seeing "of the people" being formulated that way in order to directly express the quality of being natural right. The theory I am suggesting is that, other than stating to whom the right belongs, the purpose of "of the people" is not to directly point out any quality of an identity. Instead, the direct purpose is limited to pointing out existence of that identity. More specifically, the purpose is to point out existence not created by the Amendment for that right using only the level of identification needed for that purpose. This separation between whether something is or is not to be created by the corresponding Amendment ought to be encountered first in the process of creating the Amendment. Also, whether an integral part or an addition to the purpose of using "of the people" to state that the existence the right has is not being created by the corresponding Amendment, there is a passive reference to the right and in turn whatever qualities it has and that can hardly show leaving a need for a direct reference.

+105 (second amendment interpretation 78)

I mixed things in the preceding post. If the intention behind "the right of the people" to which I am referring, was concluded from parts of the bill of rights other than the Second Amendment, then the additional point at the end of that post is valid. But if the Second Amendment itself was needed then that point is just a redundancy.

+104 (second amendment interpretation 77)

The way the phrase "the right of the people" was used in the Fourth Amendment may not seem encouraging to what was mentioned here about it in the Second Amendment. But on a more careful look this could not only be neutralized but also flipped the other way around. The initial uneasy feeling about the use of that phrase in comparison to how it was used in the Fourth Amendment comes from how, in contrast with seeing it referring to a controlled or conditioned right here, it seemed to refer to a natural right there. However, seeing "the right of the people" imply a natural right in the Fourth Amendment follows seeing it referring to an already existing right. But as direct as being the other side of that same already existing right coin is that the creation of the Amendment did not create that right. Sharing the meaning of that phrase from the level of that the right was not being created by the Amendment instead of jumping directly to the conclusion of a natural right seems to relieve this apparent conflict or unfit in the use of that phrase between the Second and the Fourth Amendments. In addition, now it is easier to see how much that phrase was clearly put to suggest an unconditioned natural right in the Fourth Amendment strengthening even more seeing otherwise in the Second because of how it was preceded.