+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.

+222 (second amendment interpretation 167: Inaccuracy in that article)

Struggling with how to fit the capitalization to no capitalization then to capitalization again, for the word "state" in that article to which I keep referring (link in post 214), I followed the link provided in that article itself for the first version that included the word "state" and found that, unlike how it is shown in the article, it is not capitalized in the source.  

+221 (second amendment interpretation 166: Use of Development History)

I am not sure which movie it is, but the way this court disregarded the development history of this Amendment in its majority opinion here reminds me of that scene of two guys sitting in the front seats of a car with one of them teaching the other how to drive. The first thing that teacher did was to immediately pull off the rear view mirror, threw it away, and say "first lesson in Italian driving: Never look back".

  

+220 (second amendment interpretation 165: The Change to The Final Version - 2: Simpler Argument)

Related to post 218, instead of going through the reasons mentioned there explaining why "the best security of a free state" was changed, here is an argument that is simpler at least when trying to apply it on alternatives like "the best security to a free state" or "the security to a free state". We have a problem here, but it is with a very innocent looking thing. It is with the word "the". On one hand, you cant use phrases like those above without it because that would make them applicable forever. One the other hand when it is present, it allows "free state" to be seen as qualifying or modifying the word "security" to a different meaning than the one wanted here.
+++++++++++++++
The above is wrong. Instead, the simpler argument that can be used on all the above examples and also those without the word "the" seems to be that when that part gets started with a noun, it is not clear whether "free state" is describing or constructing it.   

+219 (second amendment interpretation 164: The religious exemption provision)

The religious exemption provision is a very strong point for contrary views here for the purpose of capitalizing the word "state", but that is only because the Bill of Rights was, as I argued before, very wrongly taken as applicable only to the federal government. Otherwise it is very easy to see that as protection against the States without any need to see the Amendment direct at them first. Actually, while sides like the one with collective view may argue that the idea to focus the Amendment on the States developed later, how much the view that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government fit with such absence of anything suggesting targeting the states in the first version of the Amendment although it brings that religious exemption provision?           

+218 (second amendment interpretation 163: The Change to The Final Version)

The last version of the amendment before the final reads:

 A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (From that article about the development of the Amendment (link in post 214). Although I have an earlier version of that same article mentioning this without the word "best" as the version of the amendment closest to the final chronologically)  

The final version is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What could be the reason for changing "the best security" to "necessary to the security" and capitalizing the word "state"? For the first part of the question above, in an earlier post, I suggested that the reason could be to avoid understanding "the best" as referring to some unpractical pure/theoretical freedom need, but the blundering I have been making recently here led me to an additional view. This view also supports seeing adjusting that part of the amendment for the kind of environment change consideration, for which my position stands. The "the best security" in the first version above could be understood as describing quality without necessarily a role. In other words, the "of a free state" part could be taken as referring to merely the state to which the militia belongs but not necessarily to that the militia serves as the security there. The final version puts higher priority to describing the role that the militia should take and less priority to where (in terms of relative specificity) that role takes place. It does that by using "necessary to" to sever that dual meaning of role and belonging versus just belonging connection between the "militia" and the "free state" and instead replaces it with defining the role that the militia should be fulfilling, while using only specificity at the level of describing the target where that role should happen as one of the States.

+217 (second amendment interpretation 162: Being Partly Wrong)

I am wrong in my theory about suggesting that they were seeking the no connection between the militia and the free State in order to express more applicability on States. Here is the simple thing to which I should have been better prepared. If I say:

This well, being necessary to a thirsty person, it should be kept accessible    

Despite the use of being there, there is no need to actually have a thirsty person when speaking, for that statement to be true.

Therefore having the militia not belonging to the free State in "being necessary to a free State" does not make a difference since "free State" here is just a place holder for any State. 

However, aside from how I unnecessarily made things more complicated to say "any state", the theory related to limiting that any state generality by capitalizing the word "state" in order to better enable applying being necessary to the security of a free state as a test is not just still standing but significantly stronger today after the support mentioned in the preceding post.   

+216 (second amendment interpretation 161: Capitalized "state" and Local vs.General specificity-2:unexpected support from the development history)

I was just thinking about how the preceding post could be just a headache because of a far fetched probability, when I noticed this very interesting thing in support of it in the development of the amendment (link provided in post +214). I noticed how the "of" in the versions leading to the final, containing "being the best security of a free state" (and also the closest version to the final version according to a saved earlier version I have of that wikipedia article which do not have the word "best"),  imply belonging, unlike, at least at the technical level, the word "to", which when brought into the middle of the connection to that belonging, as part of "necessary to", the word "state" got capitalized.  

+215 (second amendment interpretation 160: Capitalized "state" and Local vs.General specificity)

As much as it is possible to take the being necessary to a free state test as being about any state that for which the militia in question can be seen as satisfying, as much as there is a better chance not to take a circumstantial reason for a change as an essential one (Although that may be much less applicable to circumstantial in depth reasons like the example in post 210. But also notice how the talk here could be a safer way to express the same thing that was intended with the earlier talk about not qualifying the militia). But back then who knew how the world will develop and how that development will spread around? Therefore as much as one extends that no association between any militia and any free state globally as much as the risk would increase for not acknowledging an essential change in an environment because of taking it with a different environment as one. Capitalizing of the word "state" supports identifying or limiting the environment where the being necessary to the security of a free state test should be applied. Even if we assume we are not now, had the word "state" not been capitalized and this country moved from then into an environment that is sufficiently different from even one other part of the world we could differ on whether to take the generality of "being necessary to the security of a free state" over the speaking background of the amendment or that it should be the other way around in applying it to test the environment for the necessity of a militia. Both the absence of specificity in associating the militia with a free state and the capitalization of the word "state" can be seen as working hand in hand to balance the effect of each other toward applying "being necessary to the security of a free state" according to the position for which I argue, by avoiding local specificity while providing a general one, in order to support application continuity or change according to the absence or existence of essential changes where it should be taken into account.   

+214 (second amendment interpretation 159: My preceding three posts)

I again looked at the development of the amendment available to me through the section in the Wikipedia Article about the amendment titled Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights to see how what I said fit. 

Starting from the earliest, post +211, if the capitalization of the word "state" is for the purpose mentioned there, how about all those earlier versions with the word "state" not capitalized? However I also realized that I was wrong in thinking that capitalization is needed for that purpose because I myself did not make good use of the first comma and started from the target instead of the whole environment when measuring changes that may affect the status of the necessity of the militia.

In the post about the word "free", I took that word as referring to freedom in the sense of not being attached to another entity. Even if  describing the militia as being "the best security of a free state (State)" can be seen to fit that, the description of the militia as "the security of a free state" in the saved version I have for this article (I need to look better for more reliable source for the development of the amendment) cant be.

In post +212, the theory there put direction as the purpose for capitalizing the word "state" while taking that capitalization for the side of the collective view imply a purpose of both directional and locational qualities. However, according to the versions in my reference source here, every time the word "military", which supports the directional purpose,  gets mentioned, the word "state" comes with no capitalization. Also, the versions toward the end with the word "state" not capitalized suggest going back and forth on the issue which fits something that requires judgment calls like the purpose in my theory not something at the root of what should have been already decided like that of the collective view interpretation. 

But, I also realized yesterday that despite having those on that side not arguing the type of conditionality in the amendment for which I stand, I may not need to argue against the collective view itself for my purpose. 

              

+213 (second amendment interpretation 158: The word "free" )

The word "free" seems to be added to support the theory of the preceding post because combining it with capitalized "state" seems to leave little room to take things otherwise, if at all.

+212 (second amendment interpretation 157: "State" Not "state"-2 )

On a second thought, I probably shouldn't have given priority for the explanation in the preceding post over my original theory about that capitalization being used for a purpose the need for it seems more in being the reason behind the form of expression used rather than follows from it. My original theory is that that capitalization projects a view from outside to tell us that the necessity of the militia, to which they refer, is about external dangers not something that requires policing the state.  

+211 (second amendment interpretation 156: "State" Not "state" )

Notice how much capitalizing the word "state" to make it refer to specific instance is better, if not even  needed, if the part before the second comma was intended to be followed with the measuring of changes in the environment my position calls for.

+210 (second amendment interpretation 155: Again, The First Comma )

This could be the strongest reason I have suggested for the purpose of the first comma. According to the position for which I argue, what separates claiming that the militia is not necessary for reasons like what we live from much less essential change of situation? For example, decades after the amendment someone could argue that having the union surviving this long removes that need for the militia. The first comma helps in answering that by making the part following it before the second comma refers to the whole environment so circumstantial changes like the one described above would fit much less. 

+209 (second amendment interpretation 154: Conflicts of Mine )

Actually, one may wonder, given that I refused both common interpretations here for the part before the second comma and how I argued against a constitution having an inexecutable part, shouldn't the theory mentioned in the preceding post be an already established position of mine? 

However, the part I want to change here is the level of executability I argued that statements should be in order to be part of a constitution, as much as that was contradicted by what made me move late toward the theory of the preceding post.    

+208 (second amendment interpretation 153: The militia talk)

Now I feel inclined to see not that they wanted to talk about the militia and controlled the talk according to the type of environment but instead that the whole militia reference was brought as a measure for the purpose of how change in the environment could affect that right to keep and bear Arms, to begin with. I am not suggesting a theory that they did not want that right for the sake of the militia but just that they did not want to mention that if it were not for the purpose mentioned above. 

+207 (second amendment interpretation 152: The "well armed" part)

Yes, I can see that the "well armed" part was removed from the version mentioned below. But even if you take that to imply that the purpose of the keep and bear arms clause is to protect the militia from being dismantled like the court says, that still does not contradict the purpose behind that being the role of the militia in relation to the security of a free State. I wanted to point out this, in case there is a confusion .

Also, that same assumed implication also fits how much the number of persons on a fighting side was a big factor then and taking that into account like this by the makers of the amendment adds support to the intention of pointing out the environment at that time with regard to the role of the militia for security, using "being".

By the way, I copy those initial versions from a version of a wikipedia article about the amendment but I just noticed that the word "arms" was not capitalized in the final version mentioned in that section which may call for reviewing the original sources or seek additional secondary ones on the accuracy of the versions written in that section.          

+206 (second amendment interpretation 151: The need for "being"-2)

The first version even used a semicolon and could have used "is" instead of "being" while keeping the form and everything else used there the same rather than saying:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

  

When the future justifies or explains past action between then and now like here, others get credited for their vision. The makers of this amendment instead had what they said get obscenely taken elsewhere.  

+205 (second amendment interpretation 150: The need for "being")

As if questioning that merely on the final version is not enough, I just want to know how could one allow himself to take choosing the word "being" as none essential choice like the general view here, despite seeing all that insistence on using it throughout the development of the amendment from the very beginning?   

+204 (second amendment interpretation 149: What an example this is!)

How many other examples could one find for people doing what they want to do without any excuse like this one? The signs and fittings for the side for which I argue and against the opposing ones make one feel like being submerged. Anyway, lets point out one additional part of this ocean.

Do you see how, in addition to the suggestion of actuality provided by the use of "being", the change in the development of the amendment from 
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state... to the current version, as it relates to replacing "the security"  with  "necessary to the security", also fits trying to express a practical need not a theoretical purpose about freedom?
This interpretation is also supported by an earlier change from a version using "the best security". 

Like it is mentioned in the preceding post, arguments like this should not be a distraction from how the part before the second comma of the amendment is open, like anything else, to be taken for reasoning as the intended purpose from the onset at least as much as that part is open for any other thing as the intended purpose. 

+203 (second amendment interpretation 148: Why leave the root?)

Looking from point zero, the interpretation and application of the part before the second comma of this amendment seem extremely simple and I wonder how much what I have been writing is actually making things worse by encouraging jumping this starting level.

In order to know how to follow anything I need first to know what it is. Seeing that part as intended for reasoning is by far the strongest of all possibilities. Would anyone argue against  it being taken this way if it were said elsewhere? So why should it be taken otherwise when it comes in a constitution?  

+202 (second amendment interpretation 147: Missing Comma?)

Even with this same level of specificity, wouldn't having the militia itself as the purpose need or at least be better expressed with an additional comma after the word "necessary"? 

+201 (second amendment interpretation 146)

A little while ago I thought of an example that is simple but seems very powerful in illustrating how compelling the explanation suggested in the preceding posts for the role of the additional specificity provided by "to the security" in the Amendment.

Suppose that someone you know had no access to his car so he comes asking to use yours to go to the supermarket saying:

I want to borrow your car keys to go to the supermarket.

You pull the keys from your pocket and give them to him saying:

Okay, go to the supermarket.

There is no problem here.

Now just imagine that your answer was instead:

Okay, go to the supermarket to shop.

How probable is it that that person would respond saying:

Why else would I go to the supermarket?

Do you see how the additional specificity provided by this simple addition of "to shop" made the other party question your position regarding the relationship between people ( or at least this person) and supermarkets (or at least a supermarket intended there)?          

+200 (second amendment interpretation 145: example change)

As usual, I wait until it is late at night to notice my mistakes or shortcomings. Anyway, I want here to improve the example I am giving from the one I gave in the preceding post to this:

If Jack and Jim are employees at the same company then Jack could say something like the sentence below to counter seeing him and Jim as friends:

I occasionally get together with Jim here to do work.

The reason I am doing this is that, in the example of the preceding post, having a material relationship of paying for a service, as the part "to service my car" suggests, could be seen as a change in width instead of  change in depth explanation  because it is not how friends deal with each other and this does not fit as a pass through relation like the one mentioned in the earlier post. In this example, on the other hand, doing work together fits both being friends and not being friends but it is being pointed out in order to give the depth of the purpose to doing the work instead of stopping in the expression at getting together allowing it to be seen as having the depth of friendship.   

+199 (second amendment interpretation 144:)

Counting on the reader or listener to take being as "always" but at the same time explaining the purpose to the level of pointing out "to the security", who talks like that especially if  the purpose is clarification?

On the other hand the explanation suggested in the preceding post is not far fetched from even the way people combine things to express similar intention in everyday life. If, for example, you want to avoid your relationship with Jim, a car mechanic, from being seen as that of a friendship, you could say something like I see Jim  occasionally to service my car to suggest otherwise. Here also, "occasionally" expresses limiting the relationship time wise from a higher frequency  which could be associated with a friendship, while "to service my car" helps in preventing expressing the purpose of seeing Jim from stopping at Jim and letting the door open for understanding a  depth of friendship in that relationship.    

+198 (second amendment interpretation 143: That Level of Avoidance)

By Heaven! people, cant you see that in addition to the time limitation of "being", the rest of that part did not stop at "necessary" or even limit itself to "necessary to a free State" but had to supply the whole "necessary to the security of a free State"?

The militia as not itself the purpose but a mere pass through was expressed in width, time wise using "being", and also in depth by not letting the militia appear as the end contact point in expressing that necessity.   

+197 (second amendment interpretation 142: Quick summary)

Let me give a fast summary of the correct understanding for anyone wanting to stop the outrageous self deceiving going on with the interpretation of this amendment. 

I don't switch languages when I read the amendment. I take the use of the word "being" like I take it when I hear it used in similar way everywhere else and it is that it is establishing a current status and questioning its future existence at the same time.  Reading a constitution does not imply that unless proven otherwise I should take everything on the forceful side. Reasoning precedes that and here it directs to this  understanding. Reasoning also leads us to take the way that"being" part was stated and used to imply referring to an obvious thing and I cant see better fit for that than the difference of the effect of militia size versus machinery between then and now.  
Actually, it seems that the notion of forcibility in a constitution takes its power from seeing it as an execution oriented document. However, ironically, the majority opinion of the court for the part before the second comma in seeing it merely for clarification of an always true fact seems to have abandoned executability but still held on to forcibility.

+196 (second amendment interpretation 141: An Additional Personal Dimension)

I lived my life in a conspiracy where people, because of secret demand of those closer to me to deny my existence, behaved toward me in a shallow way trying to avoid establishing real connection to my existence and because I took that world as real my existence was pushed to become extremely shallow (Believe it or not that, for example, it is only after more than decade of intentional efforts and years beyond the age of forty I was able to come to the realization that when someone has a beautiful voice the measure for that comes from the inside). 

Now on this issue here if I believe that anyone really doesn't see that what I am arguing for is the correct interpretation I feel that I am repeating that same life long mistake of losing my depth because of believing in fake existence.   

+195 (second amendment interpretation 140: Outside And Real Depth Inside Surveying)

Instead of those fabricated mass crimes, one could have served the cause much better bringing interpretation views from outside the country. The Amendment is written with simple words and simple grammars using a language that is either the first or the second language for the whole world. So what is the excuse here? Why don't we see which side with  the very abnormal understanding here?

Actually, even within our borders here how many if asked  about their own understanding and disregard those from others would agree with what are generally seen as the main views here? Even if you believe that interpretations from others have more probability for being correct lets not jump over this actual you level and support circular feeding for a pathological behaviour here in case there is one (The "in case" is written for the opposing side. Otherwise I cant see but pathological explanation here)        

+194 (second amendment interpretation 139)

I got confused in the preceding post. There is a big difference between the argument made there and the one using that first comma and it is that the former is dependent on seeing "being" intended for its lack of guaranteed permanency but the latter is not.   
This difference is not a secondary thing. I was led to the use of that first comma trying to find leads on the mere technical level that "being necessary to the security of a free State" was intended for differentiation and not just causation. Combining the intention for the lack of guaranteed permanency of "being" with the permanency of the causation,  presupposes aiming for that differentiation between the existence of that status and its absence.    

+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.

+188 (second amendment interpretation 133)

In everyday life, how many people were believed for claiming not seeing something as clear as this Second Amendment to what I am arguing for? How many decisions of fraudulent intentions were rendered against others for claiming missing something as clear as this? Or should that standard be changed here because Supreme Court Judges are at the receiving end?

What make things even worse is that they are keeping their precedent ruling for the side were they do not have the legislating backing if they were wrong. 

+187

I have been wanting to shout this to western countries for some time:
Criminal justice laws should be made with focusing on the right of the individual at the root, not on you being one group at the root. You should not step on the individual in order to make group identity flows from the top. That is not justice. 

  

+186

How many Supreme Court Judges you need to change a light bulb? Probably just one, but if luck was lacking enough to  dealing with the task like the Second Amendment or the First's anti establishment clause, the risk goes beyond that of simple failure to having that somehow a way was found to, instead, attach the light bulb at its glass end to its socket.   

+185 (second amendment interpretation 132)

The top court is still not convinced. I must have missed the equations with which it proved its interpretations elsewhere to mathematical certainty, right? 

Actually, much if not most of the cases it had made for other constitutional interpretations it had decided are very probably jokes relative to this.

+184 (second amendment interpretation 131)

continuing from the preceding post

In case there was a confusion injected by some abnormal thinking here, starting from reasoning in receiving this  mental input empties the field to no contest against my interpretation (Who knows maybe I am a real life Gulliver and in my next trip I will land where I argue against walking on hands instead of feet calling the latter "my way of walking").

But although I like to make thoughtful arguments instead of  shouting wake up calls, I finally put more effort to resist that temptation and its potential guilt of suggesting to the opposing party reasonability instead of the abnormality of its position and forced myself to return back to the basic direct level of taking the Amendment because of how much it felt bad to allow that to be skipped over, a while before it occurred to me to go that far to the start in how we mentally deal with the world in every thing we do, and point that out.    

+183 (second amendment interpretation 130)

Having the need to point out here that we always start from reasoning when interpreting any mental input we receive, reflects a level of abnormality in the thinking of the opposing side in this issue that is akin to what is seen in rehabilitation training situations to restore the connection of a patient to limbs of his body for which he lost all control after sever physical trauma.      

+182 (second amendment interpretation 129)

Continuing from the preceding post:

In the joke mentioned in post +180 what was the mistake of the children? Their mistake was that they were in a classroom and therefore unless proven otherwise, every statement should be taken as fitting that teaching environment it came inside it. Likewise here, reasoning being the start of everything we do makes reasoning the largest environment containing everything sent to us and therefore everything should be taken according to it unless directed otherwise from within.

It seems that this approach makes things much easier because we deal with all the details under this big umbrella of reasoning. Ironically, because I couldn't see how it is an  honest way for interpreting that statement before the second comma by prejudging it then taking it according to that prejudgment instead of letting its text take you wherever it takes you, if it were not for the court's prejudgment of that part before the second comma I wouldn't have sought this counter prejudgment and as a result found this apparently better path than my original.    

+181 (second amendment interpretation 128)

I so often find myself looking from a few steps back at the whole picture and scratching my head about what unfit makes this Amendment deserves such confusion. It would be ironic if what I am arguing for can be proved with guns but imagine it a question of life or death for the responding with those who made the Amendment in the next room to judge the answer with perfect honesty, how many would really interpret the Amendment different than my view, let alone agree with that of the court? 

Like it has been emphasized in the preceding posts, the part before the second comma should serve a material purpose. That is the correct way for writing a constitution, at least one like this written with inclination toward calling for actions as demonstrated with using the word "shall" generally to express that something should be done.  And as it is  everywhere it is required to complete a process by building on the work of a predecessor, one assumes the preceding work was done correctly. 

Reasoning  is the beginning point of everything we do. Even when we follow what we are told in a constitution, it starts with recognizing that it is telling us something not reasoning with us, with reasoning. So, does reasoning tell us that by default we should start with taking what this constitution says, generally or specifically for the part before the second comma, as stating something on us and above serving a material purpose? Therefore except when having the intention of stating not reasoning proven through reasoning first, reasoning continues its application on the part of the Amendment before the second comma wholly and partly.        

  

+180 (second amendment interpretation 127)

Yesterday I noticed how much taking the part before the second comma like the way the court did in its opinion fits a simple joke in my native language I read a long time ago. It goes like this:

The teacher : Live the monkey in Africa (equivalent to "The                             monkey lives in Africa" in English Grammar) 

The children in the class: LIVE! LIVE! LIVE! (the equivalent                          of "live" there is also for "long live" as an                                      idiom)

The monkey statement was taken, like here, in a way that does not fit the environment but from the other side. In that case it was a teaching environment but the children, enthusiastic about monkeys, understood that statement as for action.   

     

+179

My story with the Second Amendment here is like that of Superman except that I am the earthy one while everybody else flies far from normal thinking. 

+178 (second amendment interpretation 126)

The collective understanding could be a distraction and impediment to my stand if you, as not believing in my position, look from a neutral ground. But if you look for a support for your own opposing position then I do not see a reason for giving a preferential treatment to your wrong. 

I also do not agree with skipping over the capitalization of the word "State" without putting good effort to give that its proper weight, in order to get easier path to refute that understanding.  

  

+177 (second amendment interpretation 125)

Because it is related to a matter that can severely affect even those who do not participate with any choice, I tolerated being silent about how I see that collective right only argument as wrong thinking let them get convinced with whatever convince them. But now I think that it could be just a distraction and impediment for others against seeing what they really shouldn't have missed or ignored. The only elephant in this room that has not been accounted for, is the conditionality based on the type of general environment. If this poor elephant has not been standing here for the better half of a century or more and we are still living those earlier times of human quantitative strength against the military machinery then the Second Amendment would have clearly given individual right to keep and bear Arms. I have never hesitated on seeing it that way and I think if you survey people outside this country with basic following lines in thinking capability (for example above that of assuming a connection was claimed by the government between 9/11 and Saddam's Iraq just because of the kind of talk about the two that happened during that time) then I would be surprised if less than 80 percent would agree with me here. I cant even see why "self defense" needed to be invoked for that.

Yes, even in my first language the literal equivalent to "bear Arms" is probably more commonly used in the collective sense than individual one. Still, aside from anything else, if they wanted that meaning, do you think that they would have preceded that phrase with "keep and"? Do you think that they missed how preceding "bear" with "keep" could take it away from its idiomatic meaning as attached to "Arms" to its original meaning?

However, at least this side tried to suggest a material effect for the part before the second comma, unlike the individual right one which I do not know how much tolerating the way it treated that part would bring us closer to probably one day hearing the court respond to an argument about a part of the Constitution, with saying that it does not count because those who made it were just joking there.      

+176 (second amendment interpretation 124)

Continuing from the preceding post:

If you can add support from both sides why would you be content with one? It is not like the part after the second comma calls for a hardly related thing. No, like how the militia in the part before that comma refers to an assembly where quantity  of people is utmost importance, the Arms in the part after has its best effect through the magnitude of the quantity of people it empowers. And both fit with the pointing to the status of the militia with "being" because of the importance of that quantitative measure for security at that time.   

+175 (second amendment interpretation 123)

There is a scene in The King of Queens sitcom where the guy was bringing together bread slices and peanut butter and jelly and his father in law asks him if he was making a sandwich so the guy responds sarcastically "What gave me away?". Here also, you have "being" pointing at that environment (unless you take the part before the second comma as purely  conditional or hypothetical which is even better for my position) and you have from the other side the part after the second comma gives a right related to arms, yes arms not weapons in general, in an environment, far from being like ours, where generally the biggest factor for wining battles is the number of persons on a side with their arms. Moreover the word "arms" was not let loose but it was capitalized by the same people who did not capitalize the word "law" anywhere in the Bill of Rights despite being capitalized everywhere it was mentioned in the constitution. 

+174 (second amendment interpretation 122)

To this moment all the general Second Amendment applicability arguing I have found wherever I look has been about whether it gives a right to keep and bear arms to individuals or collectively, without ever reading or hearing even one person suggesting or even just wondering why "being" should not be understood as limiting applicability to the kind of that referred situation.

Who would have thought that in real life one reaches a place worthy of being with those in Gulliver Travels? 

By the way, in case it is thought otherwise, the reference to the part before the second comma as "controlling" the execution of the part after it was an indirect one passing thorough that the part before the second comma should be intended for an effect which happened to be controlling here (in the sense of yes or no depending on fitting the condition or environment described in that part).   

+173 (second amendment interpretation 121)

Although a general reference to a "cautionary approach" in writing a constitution was made in the preceding post, the huge issue of taking the risk of making a mere clarifying intent susceptible to being taken for affecting execution especially with a statement that lends itself to that like the part before the second comma in the Amendment deserves a very special and big shout by itself. It is hard to avoid seeing such view as uncalled for insult at least when the absence of things suggesting something even close to such recklessness in the Constitution is considered. The Amendment could have been written in a way where the part before the second comma is dissolved within the part after it (like in Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right ...) instead of this clear separation form and the risk of seeing the part before the second comma as controlling the execution of the part after it would have been still huge.

So even without considering whose view would get more votes inside the country or out, this point by itself makes merely finding my view as reasonable alternative a huge problem for the view of the court but not vice versa.

+172 (second amendment interpretation 120)

Continuing from the preceding post:

Even with things directed at specialties, it is hardly seen unwise to seek the view of the fresh external eyes of a layman. On the other hand although a constitution is like a manual for a device with dangerous consequences if miss used, that manual was written for the public. Even if that manual also contains some parts designated for sophisticated users, the average person should not need more than careful reading and self control to follow the instructions of a manual when starting at the root. Likewise, here we are not differing on the extent to which something should be applied in this discussion about the Second Amendment but on its core meaning. Also the opposite side did not make any argument showing why the meaning it claims needed to be expressed in that manner for one to assume there was a need for a different start here.  That of course goes on top of the need to justify the existence of making a part like that for only a clarifying purpose there especially in short amendments showing focus on executionary use like those in the Bill of Rights to begin with. Even where there is much less needed cautionary approach than that of writing a constitution, how often have you seen in the operating or assembly instructions of a manual a part intended for no execution like the other side argues for the part before the second comma of the Amendment?

By the way, usually when someone suggests a meaning that is not the direct one like this court did with the word "being" in the Amendment that lacking gets offset by that meaning being the more obvious one but in this case the court has neither. 

+171 (second amendment interpretation 119)

Again, I want to go back to ask how much people here are unexcused for interpreting the Second Amendment this wrongly despite its clear meaning to everybody else? This is not like something that can be only witnessed and tested in a lab or an internally felt or experienced thing so one may doubt if others can really see the same thing, for people here to act like they are alone in the world. The Amendment is a text that can be submitted to anybody to read and was written in a language that is already either the first or the second for most of the world. I would be very surprised if any reasonable percentage of people would not be inclined to my view far more than the current interpretation and that they would accept taking my view as the interpretation for the Amendment at least at the same proof standard the Supreme Court here accepts interpretation for other amendments and like sky to earth at the level the court may interpret things when it gets hijacked internally by psychological motives like the way it took the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Actually, would there be any reasonable percentage considering the current interpretation as an alternative unless it is brought to them, to begin with? What has been going on here is much more like having a party than serious interpretation. Do you really think that any normal person outside would be anywhere close to taking "being" far from its direct meaning and that the part before the second comma was not intended to affect execution of the part after it like it has been taken here? If you do then lets do this test.

  

+170

Related to post +166, I found later that there is no parole in the federal system. So does it seem fair that that guy and others in similar positions spend their lives in prison like those who killed other people? From their reaction after sentencing, it seems as if even the family that suffered from being held hostage itself were not that enthusiastic about the apparent severity of that sentencing, as expressed by saying that they are just glad it is over or something like that. Why is it that all the thoughts of mercy and forgiveness only fall on a person after he crosses the line of killing another person? I don't only think this behaviour is wrong but I see it probable that inside it called for by that establishing identity behaviour to which I keep referring (However, again, do not forget  that I am permitting myself to talk about that identity thing at the level one may point to a box as the intended target even though it could be what is inside it). Why is it that the no cruel and unusual punishment part of the constitution is not sought to be applied on situations like this instead of the unimaginable argument of applying it on death penalty implementing an eye for an eye  punishment for the act of killing another person (still targeting only equality at the level of the end result of taking a life and not the pain associated with that) which is what has been understood as justice probably since the beginning of humanity. Also, I wonder how much the constitutional power given to the president to pardon and commute is taken as intended to be a helping chance of a safety net for the system that should be sought in terms of appropriate use instead of merely how more or less it gets used. If it were me I would ask congress to either take responsibility on that or authorize funding for me to create entitie(s) helping me in carrying that authority as a responsibility. 

+169

Related to post +164, I have just found out that if I click the "social" tab on Gmail I can read the comments made on any of my posts. Therefore I removed the moderating choice I made earlier and comments, including those from anonymous authors, should appear immediately.