+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.