+232 (second amendment interpretation 177: Improving the example below)

The example in the preceding post may not sound as compelling as it could have because generally the occasion one may imagine for saying such statement may be a big help in guessing the intention. But we can adjust that by bringing the similarity closer with the making of a constitution. We can imagine that statement said at the planing for the creation of  that company. 

+231 (second amendment interpretation 176: The Comma Preceding The Word "shall")

The comma preceding the word "shall" is needed for taking the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part the conditional way I am arguing but does not make a difference in execution if that part was intended as true forever. That is because without it the part after the second comma would have strongly suggested itself as one whole action that continues to be applicable even when the militia being necessary to the security of a free State is no longer true. But this comma prevents that by giving "shall not be infringed" its own execution time. 

An example here is if the decision makers of a company say

The company, being on tight budget, big projects shall not be taken  that would open itself to be taken as a general policy decision even if the budget becomes sufficient for big projects later, more than if there were a comma before "shall" which helps seeing the purpose as while the tight budget situation exists only. 

+230 (second amendment interpretation 175: Proceeding On The Meaning)

Since "being" should be taken relative to the speaker's time, its effect has expired. Now the status of a militia as necessary to the security of a free State exists only on the assumption that that status would remain until we know otherwise. So, do you see the militia as necessary to the security of a free State in our time? If not, then the part before the second comma no longer makes the part after that comma applicable. Could things be simpler? Who said that we should take this different from the way we take other things in life after the assurance of a status they have expires? Because this is a constitution? If so, not only that one cannot see what supports that position but also there is what supports otherwise. Lets take a simple example of this support. How about when a constitution imply the existence before some specific time, should we continue to assume that time did not pass beyond that point no matter what the clocks count? One actual example of this could be this part in article 5 "..no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses..."   

Are we still not in the year 1808? So why should things be different with the word "being" of the Second Amendment?      

+229 (second amendment interpretation 174: Meaning versus Purpose)

Yesterday I noticed a confusion that not only led me to write what otherwise I would not in my recent posts but also had a major effect on me since the beginning. Does the word "being" in itself take us to either the limited time or the forever meaning? No it does not. It simply says that something exists now and does not say it exists beyond that. We take those meanings in various situations from the purpose not from the meaning of the text and one should be very careful not to see those two things as one . If for example, Jim says to Jack that the thing the latter wants to do takes much time, what is the purpose of Jim? Advices Jack not to do that thing or helps him get prepared or just let Jack take into account that information? We do not know. However the meaning of what Jim said is clear. Saying something for a purpose does not necessarily imply that purpose is the meaning of what was said. Same thing here, we need to first try to take the text itself and see to what it leads us to do. We may need to go back and think about what could be the purpose if only we cannot figure out what to do, not confusing itself by thinking about the purpose from the onset. This does not mean ignoring the purpose but instead it means taking it better by including the purpose of how the end purpose was led to.

+228 (second amendment interpretation 173: What was that I wrote? )

What was that I wrote in the two posts below? How is it better "being" argument against that that word was intended for everlasting application, than the "artistic expression" one which I discovered wrong lately? The reason that made me go wrong there is that I did not take into account seeing that word as intended for mere existence, not duration as it appears to me and here I repeated that same mistake. In addition, my arguing against "being" intended to apply forever by taking that to imply "being" equivalent to "always" also comes from that focus on duration as the only intended purpose for using that word.

I did not notice my earlier mistake then came back to repeat it here despite how in between I wrote those posts about the role of the first comma in pointing out differentiation not just causation with "being". 
There are other issues for reevaluation in the two posts below. But related to the issue of generally taking "being" as intended for duration and not for mere existence by default, on second thought, absent adding special argument for specifically this word here, doesn't the continuous form of a verb put doing the action not the result of that action as the direct meaning, and therefore it is the first meaning?  
Actually, if this question is answered affirmatively and there is no argument for an exception for specifically the word "being", I may not need to review the posts below in order to use it neither the argument they intended to replace. I may not repeat the assumption that the opposing side applied the duration meaning for "being" first in order to reach his mere existence meaning but I would still say that by default this meaning cannot be taken without proof giving it priority over the duration meaning.  
But, still on another thought, the duration meaning path may be taken to answer the objection I just mentioned so I would still need to answer that path for the purpose of this technical discussion for the use of the word "being" in general.      

+227 (second amendment interpretation 172: Better "being" Argument-2 )

In the last part of the preceding post instead of saying " that occurring is not the same while time passes" I should have said " that occurring seize to exist immediately with any passing of time" and that is what makes referring to the happening of an action different from even referring to actual objects here. While earlier there it was discussed why the time related reference in "being" should be taken as belonging to the environment at the time of making that reference, the last paragraph of the preceding post discussed  why the following environments cannot be combined with that one as one.  
To avoid unnecessary confusion let me point out an important distinction here. I am not arguing against that "being necessary to the security of a free state" should be taken as true until proven otherwise. What I am arguing against, here, is taking that directly from this quoted part instead of from the assumption that something in a state would remain in that state until proven otherwise. What I am arguing for is that that quoted part itself refers to only that exact moment in time when it was made (one may extend this mere technical level to the reasonable level of intending to refer to the environment within a time period then but taking it beyond this needs additional support (The "reasonable level" mentioned here is for reasonableness in the pointing action itself and not because it is needed to make the amendment work because, like it is pointed out above, it can work on the basis of assuming that something in a state would remain in that state until proven otherwise even at that mere technical pointing level)). 

+226 (second amendment interpretation 171: Better "being" Argument )

I have just spent more than an hour imagining other uses for the word "being" for expressing always existing statuses and feeling bad about how wrong I was in supporting my position by arguing that cannot happen except artistically. But in exchange I think that I got a much better substitute that stands against all those cases. Here is the new argument:

When a person speaks his speech is taken as being within time not timeless unless proven otherwise and the constitution is no exception to this. "being" taken as intended to refer to an always true fact here can be seen either as timeless or as adding persistency thorough out time and both need proof from the side making that claim.

Even if one sees the amendment as a rule intended for  renewed applications and believes that the probability of intending to refer to that specific application only,  prevents a constitution from making rules by examples, the subjective talk we have here states the result (the part after the second comma) undissolved and separate from the situation described  in  the cause (the part before the second comma).
       
So my position for the purpose of the word "being" is not only stronger with signs supporting it but also can fit the default way that word should be taken here while that of the opposing side can not.

To put the main argument here in different words one could say that the speech of a man comes from his existence and his environment is an extension to that existence. Therefore unless a more limited version of that existence is proved as the action taker, a time related reference should be taken as relative to that environment because it is part of the existence that preceded the action. Even if all other environments needed for making "being" equivalent to "always" are also seen as extensions to the speaker here, those environments did not precede the action in existence and therefore do not have the same priority for taking the time related reference as part of them like the one that existed at that time.   
This is the common view in the universe and a proof is required for claiming that things should be otherwise when making a constitution.  
If there were a part of a constitution saying "Horses should be allowed everywhere", I would not be able to make for it the same argument I am making here. That is because the passing of time has no effect on the definition of  what a horse is and therefore past and present environments can be taken as one. But  when there is a reference to the occurring of an occurrence, that occurring is not the same while time passes and therefore past and present environments cannot be taken as one. 

+225 (second amendment interpretation 170: The Root Focus )

I was thinking this morning that the only reasonable counter argument to my view is based on the use of the word "free". Even though one may find a purpose for the use of that word that fits that view, still is the trade of worth it if the intention behind the part before the second comma is to reason with practicality not freedom in principle? Wouldn't things be better without this word? So why take such a risk? Then in the midst of trying to find a better justification or explanation for the use of that word countering such risk, it occurred to me how the level of risk I see here, to begin with, may have been exaggerated because I also got partly infected by the way this amendment being taken here with missing focus and not following the path with which things were presented. That is because if I put the by far the most reasonable explanation for the use of the word being as the starting focus, as its precedence in the amendment directs me to do, I perceive no such risk. That starting view would be like the container according to which things have to fit in order to exist. And we have additional help here with how this "being" part was changed from succeeding to preceding the part after the second comma and was kept there throughout the development of the amendment.               

+224 (second amendment interpretation 169: NO WIGGLE ROOM HERE )

If it were merely about having an argument I make getting very unfairly snubbed  here, I could still be very willing to withhold  judging the person as a whole. But not taking action on an issue like this despite the clarity of reasons calling for that action, leaves no room for not seeing the whole person doing that as a bad person like one sees many mass murderers in history based on how the clarity of evidence against them suggest having no valid defence, even without hearing their counter arguments.          

+223 (second amendment interpretation 168: Necessary Actions )

I just want to point out that adding or trying to add talk at a higher level here should not be a reason for not taking a necessary action, just like how a person seeing a car moving fast toward him would not stay in the path of that car waiting to understand how car engine work.