+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necessity that gives a right to keep and bear Arms and if the answer is no then the Arms clause of the Amendment is no longer applicable?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.