+193 (second amendment interpretation 138)

The role of the first comma pointed out in the preceding posts comes in addition to how intersecting the time limitation or the lack of permanency of "being" with the free undissolved permanent existence of the part before the second comma, by itself, also serves the same purpose.

So even at the pure technical level, it is one leading thing inside another for the conditional meaning of "being necessary to the security of a free State".  
By the way, for much of what have been written in the past, I have been mistakenly using the word " continuity" to mean permanency.     

+192 (second amendment interpretation 137)

It is now more than 24 hours since I wrote the preceding post and therefore, according to the system with which I try to restrict myself, I cannot change it. Otherwise I prefer to add  "(if at all)" to the end of "through merely being an existence"  because, as mentioned previously, the whole thing could be a pure condition without referring to actual existence of the militia being necessary to the security of a free State. The fact that the environment at that time fitted that condition does not by itself imply a reference to that actual environment.  

Although, the content of the preceding post is about the role of the first comma, I did not notice it starting thinking about that. Instead, I was trying to find how to answer why we should take "being necessary to the security of a free State" as being about contrasting that existence with its absence instead of simply being about just that existence, from within the used expression itself without external support, and was led from there to the use of that first comma.       

+191 (second amendment interpretation 136)

Let me add this to expressing the overwhelming strength of the side for which I have been arguing:

The first comma adds help to clarifying the role of "being necessary to the security of a free State" as not connecting the two parts around it through merely being an existence but also through being a condition, by pointing to not only the existence of that status but also to the absence of an opposing status, and that is done by expressing the existence of that status from within a whole or a total that also includes as other possible statuses the militia not being necessary or the unknown.

+190 (second amendment interpretation 135)

I remind again, if the burden of proof falls on my side then bring me your argument for that. Otherwise, if we start on equal footing from the beginning of the Amendment then there is no comparison between any other opposing interpretation and that of my side. The "being" expression at the beginning fits the same expression of every day life which one may use to bring attention to the current status of something suggesting that it could change. Or it could be artistically used to state the permanency of a status indirectly by making the reader do the task of inferring that instead. So which of those two sides do you think the makers of the Amendment had intended?

Beside taking the risk of, not just artisticality, but artisticality against an opposing direct common meaning, and having to depend on that the reader has enough knowledge about the issue to reach the intended inference, there is also the question of why the necessity of a militia is more in need to be pointed out directly than its own everlasting continuity attribute?

Any one interested in real world thinking instead of deceiving the self here?

          

+189 (second amendment interpretation 134)

Continuing from the preceding post:

And what about the rest of the people? This is not something for which one should wait for a guidance toward the correct interpretation from a court. Instead, this is something for which people should ask their court why cant it catch up with them  and make the formal path matches the one everybody sees clearly in the amendment. One could go and ask its judges and if they respond with anything that seems justifying for their position brings it here (Again even anonymous comments are allowed here). I focus more on the court merely because of its authority not because there is any sophistication difficulty giving anyone an excuse not to see how the interpretation I am arguing for is clearly the one out there in the amendment.