+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.