+157: Aggressor Over Victim "Justice System"

It occurred to me a while ago that had somebody told people when they started to find it hard to tolerate an eye for an eye system that this will extend to the issue of a death penalty for the killer, who would have believed him? However, at least here we have the question of doing irreversible thing and  the level of certainty for the guilt. On the other hand there are things that seems to be practiced here and probably other Western Countries that defy justice and provide no justification except probably to serve in creating a group identity. This identity urge seems so strong that, having moved from obvious discrimination, it sought itself a refuge in making nonsensical punishment laws and seeing them like normal things. I am referring to those laws that reduce punishment if the crime was not "premeditated". Not just that they defy the logic of the equality premise from the start, they do it to an astonishing level.  You hear things associating low sentencing numbers with intentional crimes as if it happened between an unequal sides just because a killing was not "premeditated". It is as if those societies had decided to discriminate against themselves giving whoever to be in the aggressor place the privilege. Yet, this nonsensical behaviour is passed on everyday like it is a normal thing.

The only explanation I can see for such deviation from normal behaviour is the establishment of group identity I mentioned above. I previously likened this in my thoughts to the exaggeration of acting as if the whole country is one family. But couple of days ago I noticed how the analogy of a person injuring himself provide a closer path to the issue of identity here. 

Even just from the logical point of view and aside from the question of justice, those in the Western World are severely deluding themselves if they think that all their achievement in science is even close to eclipse  such nonsensical behaiour. 

+156 (second amendment interpretation 114)

It seems like much of my recent posts were about a solved problem because those in the court have preceded me to seeing the final point here and it was something that shouldn't have been missed. I wonder if it is seeing reasoning as the purpose for the part before the second comma through differentiation between connecting to text and connecting to action in it. If so then I personally need more work to see it clearly. Or it could be neither this nor anything that was close to my thoughts. I also need to see more clearly my own talk in recent posts for why the container thing to which I keep referring and the other thing I mentioned about putting existence over what they said in the part before the second comma. 

+155 (second amendment interpretation 113)

In support of what was said in post +151, notice how having, not just the text itself that is before the second comma, but also a container representing existence in which that text was said, is an integral part to stating that part of the Amendment as the reason for the part of the Amendment after that comma. That is because the text there only mention the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the reason even though the reason, pointed at accurately, is the State where a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. But that reference to the State as a container was not supplied in the text. 
If we were not supposed to take the text said in the part before the second comma through a container representing existence originating that text, then that part of the Amendment would have needed to also point out that the militia belong to where it was described as "necessary". For starter, one may think of :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of its free State,...
Or 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State where it belongs,...    
It seems that the Amendment was taken as carrying this meaning even though it is not stated directly in the text. Why would the Amendment stop in its clarification on this point even though it went as far as saying, not just "necessary" or "necessary to a free State" or "necessary to the security", but all the way to "necessary to the security of a free State"? Actually, the more it is argued that no attention was paid while making the Amendment to the gap of having this left out, the more that will also suggest more depth for dependence on the existence originating that text.  

+154 (second amendment interpretation 112)

I want to replace speaking about the "separating words" I mentioned in the preceding post with saying:

The form mentioned there for the Second Amendment would have, contrary to what we have now, a meaning for putting what they say over (control-wise) existence. That is because the use of "because" there could suggest eliminating the separate existence for the part before the second comma by dissolving it in the mixture with the part after that comma through explaining it as the reason for that part.

Calling the use of a comma in such position for merely separate words is probably better reserved for when the words directly around it could construct a different meaning. Related to this, I wonder if, linguistically, "state" would have been open to connect with "the right" on the other side of that comma as a verb here if it were not capitalized.  

I also want to point out here that putting existence at the root permits us to deal with what was said like anything else we hear with regard to separating witnessing from mental opinions and beliefs. It is through this middle layer then one proceeds to take the part before the second comma as reasoning.    

+153 (second amendment interpretation 111)

It is not a rare occurrence for me to get confused in what I myself was saying earlier. The correction in the preceding post was not needed and this may have been already noticed. The part of the Amendment before the second comma is entirely reasoning even for the snapshot taken with "being" and regardless of the intention behind the second comma. That is simply because, as mentioned in post +151, they put existence over what they said in that part. Had they instead used, for example, the "because" form  (Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed), mentioned in the opinion of the court as being equivalent to the Amendment, then that would have put what they said over existence. That is because the second comma would have been at least very open to be understood as for merely separating words not existences and that would have made just stating not reasoning the content of the part before the second comma at least a probable meaning (Although, as mentioned in earlier posts, because of "because", even if existence was seen to be put over what is being said there that would be connecting it to expressing the reason not the reason itself).

One may also notice how much the order of the two parts around the second comma was needed for this. Had they put the reverse of this order then it would have been possible to argue for the content of the part currently before the second comma as being stated not reasoned. (While it is not necessary here, it is interesting how this fits the history of the legislative development of the Amendment. Except for the first version, this order was kept to the end. Also luck, may have added more clarification here because had the two parts of the Amendment been at this order from the beginning then it could be argued that it was left like this unnoticed. But changing that order shows intentional effort suggesting attention. Although, is it entirely out of the question for people like those that it was not luck but they intentionally done that?)           

+152 (second amendment interpretation 110)

Correcting the preceding post, it is actually the connection to that container plus a dependency meaning  for the second comma, are what bring the whole process of generating the meaning of that text in the part before that comma from the root and not just the connection to that container.   
Even if we assume that dependency was not intended for us to reason the connection between the two parts around the second comma it still would not affect that we are required to reason the necessity of the militia to a free State for our time. That is because this requirement comes from the part before the second comma by itself at least from after the snapshot provided with "being" whose continuity is dependent on the existence and does not come from the authority of the constitution.
Having an attachment only by the interface without dependency,  the second comma would be just telling us that the two parts around it come together and "shall" would have only its mere future reference.

+151 (second amendment interpretation 109)

What does the Amendment give us in its part before the second comma? It gives us "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"? Good answer but probably far from being sufficient for people behaving abnormally as it is here with this Amendment. The part before the second comma gives us a container, delimited by that comma, representing the existence in which the quoted text above was said. Therefore what the Amendment give us in its part before the second comma is not just the quoted text above but also the saying of it. By "saying" I don't just mean pronouncing or writing the words of that text. What I mean by that word is the process of generating that text extending from the root of that existence. This is what was meant with words like "active form" and "process" describing the contents of the two parts around the second comma, in the preceding two posts.     

+150 (second amendment interpretation 108)

What has been  just mentioned in the preceding post does not conflict with asking "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?" in post +140. What is in the preceding post does not mean that we should not try to find what meaning would result from combining the two parts around the second comma. Instead, it just says that we have no right to cancel their existence as processes while doing that. With regard to implying what was mentioned in the quote above as the only purpose, the second comma here is like the staple that holds two pages in an article together. Looking inside at the content one may ignore the role of that staple in holding those two pages together while preserving their integrity.

+149 (second amendment interpretation 107)

Here is a better view to the Amendment. Starting out, why do we need to focus on the role of the second comma beyond that of bringing the two parts around it together without being part of either of them? Why don't we instead focus on those two parts themselves and realize their complete independence from each other in their existence in the Amendment? By containing no reference to each other, including through things like "because" or "therefore" or "for that reason" etc.,  each one of those two parts protects its active form existence in the Amendment and does not allow becoming dissolved in the resulted mixture. This active existence imply starting from the root of its creation when applying that part. With regard to the part before the second comma this requires going back to find the militia being necessary to the security of a free State at application time. Of course, only when those two parts exist together the part after the second comma would be applicable.