+266: "tradition, history and the text"

Above is a quote about interpreting the constitution here from the argument of the New York gun case at the Supreme Court. The first question I have here is:

If someone were to have his representation of himself ignored, as a punishment, which one of these two paths would be the harshest: To be treated like a legally minor child, or to be treated like one of the makers of this constitution?  

+265 (second amendment interpretation 200: New Argument For Capitalized References-4)

Here is the answer to what I wondered about in post +262, with a start from the root.

Because of the capitalization it has, the word "State" refers to all what proper nouns of state type target. The word "State" refers to the insides of those targets as separate worlds from ours because proper nouns refers to the insides of those targets as separate worlds from ours. The reason for the latter is that, unlike common nouns,  proper nouns do not use fittings in our world to refer to their targets. This absence of use of fitting in our world means referring to the inside of the target of a proper noun as a separate world because that absence has to be taken as one of the construction elements of a proper noun. If this absence is not taken as part of the proper noun then the same proper noun would not be referring to only one specific thing and that contradicts being a proper noun.    

+264 Arguing After This New York Case

I do not intend to restrict myself from continuing to argue the meaning of the Second Amendment after the oral argument for the New York case even if that meaning was taken as one of the issues. Actually, I could really think that a case will be about deciding that meaning but still continue to argue even close to rendering a decision by the court. The intention for using the time for the separation emphasis I mentioned before is about me putting good effort to do things that way but it is not about compromising my argument if I fail to complete my work earlier. 

+263: Weekly News Search

I have been wanting to say this for a long time but keep postponing it. This is related  to my auto google news search which I kept watching for probably years now. I made that search looking for normal search results. I, of course, still welcome artificial ones if the other side want them but I was not looking for them.

Yes, I once took the absence of results as indication for disapproval for something I said or did, but that came, again, because I thought the other side is the one who want that artificial creation of news. If this was not intended or no longer intended then the situation is very far from needing the other side to  modify its actions to fit my perception to reality here if that perception is wrong.        

And, by the way, I no longer as I was in the past looking for a case to be taken to argue things to the end. Although, seeing how this New York case look like a manufactured one, made me mistakenly think that the reason is the lack of filling for Second Amendment related cases.  

Related to that case, I do not care about how the upcoming argument look really about determining what should be done about the specific issue there. Instead I intend to check that argument carefully for Second Amendment inputs in general.   

+262

I probably felt it like a natural thing and did not pay sufficient attention when I made the preceding post to why should that reference be to another world instead of unknown world. However, whether I am wrong or right there, I do not intend to leave that argument as it is now.

+261 (second amendment interpretation 199: New Argument For Capitalized References-3)

Now I am more inclined to see that, unlike what I said in the preceding post, the earlier one had good enough depth but I needed to follow on that saying this which I now want to be my main argument:

Since a proper noun reference does not use a fitting in our shared world to refer to its target, it refers to the inside of that target as another world. Therefore, the inside of a proper noun reference target is out of our application domain. 

  

+260 (second amendment interpretation 198: New Argument For Capitalized References-2)

I probably did not go enough depth in the preceding post.
So let me add this update:

When there is a direct reference to a thing, as in a proper noun, the reference goes to the identity of that thing. Therefore we become under the restriction of how the structure of that thing was intended to be. That include the possibility that its elements were intended not to exist individually but only as parts of the whole. This restriction obligates us to take the thing only as a whole. On the other hand, with a common noun reference and even when there is only one thing that can fit, the reference do not target the identity of that thing and therefore we are not obligated to how it was structured beyond just fitting it in that container environment. 

+259 (second amendment interpretation 197: New Argument For Capitalized References)

Although the internal affectability of things is more common, it is not standing on its own without an enabling thing. It is more common because of the use of common nouns. Common nouns do not refer directly to things.  Instead they refer to fitting containers. Having those environments is what enables the internal affectability of things by constructing them according to those fitting environments. On the other hand, with proper nouns, the references go directly to the targeted things not to fitting environments containing them. Therefore we cannot affect those targeted things internally. 
In other words, we need access to the internal environment of things in order to be able to do internal effect on them. Common nouns give us that access but proper nouns do not.

Now, lets return to the capitalization rules of the language. We know that proper nouns should be capitalized. We also know that common nouns (like the word "state") should also be capitalized when attached to common nouns. Therefore, like how we take the word "state" as a general reference to any state, the word "State" is a general reference to what proper noun references of states target. Therefore, here, the words "free" and "security" are not internally applicable.

+258

Within the technical argument for the Second Amendment, courts have the choice to do things the easy way and accept the conclusion of my argument (including the addition I probably will make) that the capitalization of the word "state" makes the Amendment refer to only interstate not intrastate freedom and security, or the hard way making themselves vulnerable to potential attacks on all other decisions and conclusions they made but internally also depended on a similar role by a capitalization, related to the parts and the whole of an entity.    

+257 (second amendment interpretation 196: Divergence From Normality?)

I do not intend to stop the effort to provide the technical answer I see, at least not while I see that strong potential there, even if everybody were satisfied with how the big picture proves the interpretation I am arguing for the amendment. But I also do not want my effort for better technical answer to support that it is normal or reasonable to see things insufficient to support the interpretation I am arguing for, without  technical answer. That is because the big picture supports my position to the level that looking for the technical argument feels like looking for the technical answer that somebody under a rock and screaming "help" is calling for help and not telling people to help each other. Similar to how such screaming does not fit that latter interpretation, the opposing interpretation for the Second  Amendment does not fit why it was made that way.

In fact even before I noticed the path of this more technical argument, I cant remember ever tolerating in my mind even for a minuet imagining that the opposing  interpretation is correct. It always felt unsuitable like trying to fit a bigger box inside a smaller one. And this is coming from somebody who have leaned enough from the past to be careful about how humble his thinking compared to those in the intellectual fields and how it is often like butting a rock trying to add a new thing to what those other minds had passed on, let alone correcting them. Yet, all that never made me feel an inch closer to accepting that the way this amendment is taken here could be what it was intended for, and even just seeing that others could truly believe in it is unreachable to me.  

+256: Linguists Too Busy?

So, it is good enough for English linguists here to explain capitalization with the proper noun and those other just do and don't rules found everywhere but they pass on the capitalization in a document like the constitution we have as if  there is nothing that needs to be fitted or explained there in relation to those rules they give? Why? There isn't already enough perception that being a linguist is a useless profession? Or is it that they cannot catch their breath with new constitutions being made every several years like an IPhone?      

+255: Post 253 needs more

I noticed yesterday that post 253 may need more including being expressed better, which I intend to do.

Even though I think that we have the thing almost done now, I did not follow like I wanted on the preference I have been stating to do more by this date or around it.  However, one reason for being relaxed with this is that I noticed that I do not need to take the official separation in order to emphasize separation from the officials like I prefer to do here. There is always a mention in court opinions for when a case was argued and when a decision was made, and that sounds a good enough separation. Also, given how I have been arguing this before taking this case, I may add more within a while after the oral argument.
By the way, I am much more like that guy who was told by the judge on Law And Order when the former continued to argue "Take a yes for an answer, will you?" than being on the opposite to that, and taking less than all the votes here is something far from my satisfaction.  

+254 (second amendment interpretation 195: Burden of Proof for Generality of The Word "State" )

I argued for that, using the first comma, but  I do not need to. If the word "State" was intended to be just for the States in the union, that is just limiting the use and such a restriction does not need to come through changing what the word mean. Therefore, I do not carry the burden of arguing why the word "State" in the Amendment should be taken to include States outside the union. That is because the effect of capitalizing the word "state" would make "free State" not applicable on any State, since internal States are not externally free, and that has the same end effect as what I am arguing for. 

+253 (second amendment interpretation 194: Explaining Why Capitalization (As Indicative of Recognition) Should Be Taken That Way) )

Seeing that the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment does not apply to our time, through the Amendment itself is piece of cake if we take into account that the word "the" in " the security" can be about special value, not just type, and combine that with taking the words "free" and "security" to apply only externally on the State (yes, back to arguing for both of these two words together).For the latter purpose not only there is a significant arguing potential based on how capitalization for other container entities in the constitution also applied only externally, but I think I can also explain why, not just for this case, but also generally.

The explanation is simply that we recognize a thing by constructing it mentally according to a definition we have. In other words, the end of the recognition process thing is the same thing outside that fitted the mental definition that was applied, except that in the former the parts are isolated from the rest of the world outside because they are doing the role of defining that thing and not just there as parts of it. 

There are things that can be considered belonging to something even though they also need other things in the world to exist. Given that the end of the recognition process thing is limited to being only comprised of what define it, anything with extending existence beyond the definition elements themselves will not be internally applicable on that thing.  
Applying this on our case here for the word "State" leads to  that the statuses of being free and secure, to which the words "free" and "security" refer, are not applicable internally, because they require additional things from the world to be applicable not just the elements composing the State.  
Since those two statuses were applied on a Thing (the State), there is a separate environment for them as internal parts of that Thing. Therefore the inapplicability here is not the result of failure to make a choice were those statuses can be applicable. In other words, the entire value ranges, in the positive and negative, for these statuses exist only outside. Therefore, a State can be free and secure based on only how those statuses apply externally. 

Or we can say that those statuses are applicable internally relative to that environment but that does not make a difference on us here because there is only one fixed value for each there. 

I want here to also point out the role of the word "a" in "a free State" in making the word "free" not just selecting the type of State but also describing a status.  

+252: Case Or No Case

Although I do not prefer to see it happen, even if the current Second Amendment case goes away, I do not intend to lower my effort to do things within the time I suggested for my self. 

+251 (second amendment interpretation 193: A Little Thing on The Go)

Related to the preceding post, I would like to know why is the word "free" in "free State" is seen to apply also internally but "presentment or indictment" in "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", in the Fifth Amendment, is not? Or is it that the current Federal indictment process is unconstitutional for not requiring indictment from every person on a Grand Jury?

This could be just a tiny sample of the attacking fronts that are ready to be opened on the opposing side to that the word "free" in "free State" does not apply internally on the State.

+250 (second amendment interpretation 192: Preview of Potential Additional Argument for The Word "free"

Time is flying and I have to better direct my effort to other things here which I began to do in the last couple of days before yesterday when I drove my self back to this part. However, within the time allocated to this part I would like to also look if when other words in the constitution, like, for example, "Congress" or "Senate" or "Grand Jury" applied only wholly, not internally, there are always reasons for that other than their capitalization like I am arguing here for the capitalization of the word "state", because I doubt that.

By the way, it maybe confusing, but I am assigning these arguments to the word "free" even though they are more directly related to the word "State" based on my end purpose.      

+249 (second amendment interpretation 191: Better Argument for The Word "free"-2)

At least for the purpose of discussions like this, it seems better to adjust the argument in the preceding post saying:

Since the same combination of things in the outer world can be constructed mentally differently, capitalization  serves the purpose of indicating selecting a specific mental construction for an outside existence. The concept of a state as one entity is a mental construction that was selected for the related things outside through the recognition indicated by the capitalization of the word "state", to represent that corresponding group of elements in the outer world, we call "state", as one whole thing.
Although, I may not need to explain how things work in the language in order to say that recognition implies that what is recognized exists as a thing, while its absence does not. Therefore a State should be treated only as a whole because it is one thing, while a state needs to be treated also partly because it is not recognized as a thing.

More clarifications are needed here which I intend to make in a future post.

+248 (second amendment interpretation 190: Better Argument for The Word "free")

If people here were to take this issue like they take things related to science, my participation in the discussion here would have probably reflected on my thinking similar to how participation in a marathon but finishing it a year later would reflect on my athletic ability. Anyway, better late than never. It turned out that there is even a shorter and more general path than the one I used in post 244 to argue that the word "free" should apply on the state as a whole not internally. I may need to come later to elaborate further (Like I pointed out earlier, I shouldn't be considered done arguing here until the end of the amicus curie filing period as I calculated it to be at August 13 or around that) but I do not want to postpone this core. 

The word "free" should apply on the state only as a whole because capitalizing the word"state" implies recognition that connects the parts of the state to have the state as an existing thing. Without that capitalization we would only have the parts of the state required to recognize the existence of the state as a thing but without the recognition connecting those parts and therefore the word "free" can also apply internally. This applies everywhere in this language. Anything, and more obviously anything comprised of parts, does not exist as a thing without the recognition connecting those parts and I think that this the core meaning behind capitalization. In other words, in languages with capitalization like this, the recognition of a thing, itself is seen as a thing that is required to exist for the former to exist. In other words once more, these languages do not see mental existence of a thing as following world existence of what comprise that same thing. 

    

+247: Comment Section for Better Access Equality

This is another reminder that the comment section is open here especially for those with opposing views on the Second Amendment to argue back directly or post links to their arguments and share any special accessibility writing here had acquired to those with the decision making responsibility. After posting this I intend to check again the capability to post comments anonymously here.

+246: Recognizing When Elaboration is Needed

I just want to say that how much I appear sure about an argument I make regarding something related to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, that should not be taken as a measure for how probable that argument to be the final one regarding that thing. For example, I am currently working on better expressing the issue in the main part of the recent post about how the word "free" should be taken, because it still remains highly elusive. 

I do not want the balance of good and bad related to the access I have for submitting my argument in parts, to offset to the negative side because it leads to engaging others with highly competing responsibilities with the partial presentations I make. Balancing the self with how much thinking time to spend on partial arguments is not easy. However, the suggestion I previously made of having  August 13 or around that as the time by which I intend to finish my argument may provide some help here.  

   

+245 (second amendment interpretation 189: The Additional Part Below Is Wrong)

I got confused and made that added part in the post below suggesting that capitalization of the word "state" was for locality of reference.  That word is not capitalized to restrict it to the local environment. It is the local environment that restricts how that word should be taken. I did not intend to treat the first comma as none essential for its related role in countering that anyway.

By the way, I also realize that I often throw in commas writing in a relax mode and not anywhere near the thinking I put when taking the commas in the constitution.    

+244 (second amendment interpretation 188: The Argument for The Word "free" )

It turned out that arguing that the effect of the word "State" on the word "free" requires us to take the latter like I described in the core post (post 236), I have been looking in another galaxy for what is closer than being in an adjacent room. Capitalizing the word "state" imply acknowledging the existence of that state as a state in the world. This acknowledgement imply taking the interface of that state to the world as representing the whole state. In other words, the inside of a State is dissolved in that representation as one indivisible thing. This leaves freedom at the granularity level for the whole state in the world as the only way the word "free" can be applicable here.

Despite that I had already thought about how a country may acquire a statehood when I wondered about why the word "country" was replaced with the word "state" to begin with, I still did all the roaming I did here and beyond before seeing this much more direct and absolute proof.  
Since the capitalization of the word "state" implies such potential, that does not fit with general use of this capitalization just for the purpose of locality of reference.  Therefore the first comma in the Amendment may not be needed to make the case that the word "State" in the Amendment applies also on States outside this union, unless that word is taken as applicable to no State. That is because the word "free" here, as pointed out above, implies excluding internal States in the union for not being free at the granularity level of a state in the world. However, I still want to point out that the other side of this same coin can be used to answer my question to the supporters of the state right theory, in the post below. 
Because it is easy to slip here, I want to remind again that I am discussing the applicability related to the part before the second comma, not the part after if the former activates the latter.  

+243 (second amendment interpretation 187: Question for the believers in the state right theory )

Although I do not do, or at least do much less relative to others, trying to contain the thinking of the makers of the constitution instead of trying to carefully follow what they said, I still wonder if the writer of this Article had also considered the counter way things fit. The original constitution looks more focused on creating the system while the Amendments look more focused on protecting the individual in that system. In addition to how their being Amendments and not continuation of the original suggests seeking a different purpose, the time  between the making of those two things adds more strength to that suggestion.

Anyway, reading there, it occurred to me that while I am trying to make the best argument I can for the capitalization of the word "state", why don't the believers in the state right theory at least start with explaining all those not capitalized "state" words in the development history, unlike the way that word was used to refer to the local states throughout the constitution before that point if that was the purpose? Actually, I could not find any other version in the development history with the word " state" capitalized except the last one which we have, and,  like I pointed out previously, I followed the link in the wiki Second Amendment article for the only other version written there with the word "state" capitalized and found it not capitalized in the source. And if it is to be argued back that the first comma made it hard to decide how to refer to the local states, I would ask about what made that comma that necessary to compete with the main purpose here, to begin with?  
Nevertheless, having myself lately slip in thinking again with regard to this distinction, I emphasis again that what concerns me is the direct implementation purpose for the part before the second comma. Otherwise, I don't see the state right theory as more unfit as a motive for the part after the second comma than, for example, self defense as a motive.   
         

+243

I thought I had the thoughts for post 236 ready, long before I published them, thinking I can do that whenever I want, until I wanted to do that and got surprised how much more development they needed. Yet, the frequency of posting thereafter below without going back to collect myself, suggests that I did not really accept that lesson.     

+242 (second amendment interpretation 186: General environment Testing vs. Deeper Purposes )

I have found that even my own judgment for how far fetched or not what I say here sounds is affected by not sufficiently  incorporating the distinction above into my view and therefore I want to point it out again even though I did a version of this in post 236. The part before the second comma shouldn't be taken as necessarily the purpose for which the part after that comma was intended to serve. It could be just to test the availability of that kind of environment in order to take advantage of it for deeper purposes including those not part of that test itself. Generally, my arguing here is related to how that general environment test should be applied and has nothing to do with the deeper purposes for the part after the second comma when applicable. For example, despite my arguing here that protecting internal freedom is not the measure used for the security to which the Amendment refers, that does not stand against a theory that internal freedom is the purpose behind the part after the second comma. The same can be said about self defense and many other suggested purposes.

This big picture may itself appears far fetched at first. The kind of environment at that time strongly fits purposes like those mentioned above but that should not be the only thing taken into account here. Instead one needs to also ask himself why would they want to control future unfit environments in order to have that for their fit environment at that time? It is an environment that had been in that fit since the beginning of human existence on earth and remained so for close to a century or more after the making of this Amendment. 

  

+241 (second amendment interpretation 185: Precedence of "security" and "freedom" )

Both arguments for the words "security" and "free" to be applied at the external level only, which I made below, are dependents on taking the capitalization of the word "state" for the granularity level of those earlier words. For the purpose of arguing the latter, in addition to collecting points and increasing the probability, there seems to be also a direct path. That path is based simply on the precedence of the words "security" and "free". Within stating the purpose, we were directed toward the State after reaching the statuses of being secure and free. The corresponding part of the Amendment could have been written in a way making us reach the State first if the purpose includes internal freedom and security, Like:

being necessary to a State to have the security and freedom.  
Maybe I confused things by jumping directly to how things should be taken (granularity level). Technically what I am trying to prove here is that the word "free" in "a free State" describes a State not a state. In other words, to the extent the the word "free" here describes the state, that description comes through describing the State, not the other way around. This the standard of proof to which I am holding myself here.       

+240 (second amendment interpretation 184: On Development History )

I wasn't planning on starting a talk about the development history of the Amendment like this, but I wrote some of this part in the preceding post then preferred to make things more organized.

Having that development history of the Amendment, it maybe of special importance here to point out how it seems natural to see that protecting internal freedom and security extends to protecting the external freedom and security but not vice versa. Therefore, the word "state" could have been used without capitalization in those earlier versions of the Amendment also for having external freedom and security as the main test in that general applicability part, but with taking the whole package as the path for that external freedom and security. 

In addition, I once before suggested that that development history or part of it could have been intentionally made like this to help the future people. While that may have sounded as far fetched probability at the time, I now imagine having that potential objection that the makers of the Amendment just wrote the word "state" capitalized like it was written everywhere else in the constitution before making this Amendment without paying attention to the consequence of combining that with the first comma, if it were not for those not capitalized "state" words in the earlier versions.    

+239 (second amendment interpretation 183: Alternative Argument for "free" and "security" )

Instead of the argument made in post 236 and the one below, for why the words "free" and "security" should be taken in relation to the world not internally, one could simply say this:

The relationship between two words in a description status could be that of a two way path. For example, the word moving in moving car and moving boat is not only describing the words car and boat but also getting itself described back differently. Moving in a car imply being on land while moving in a boat imply being on water. In other words, a different aspect of the word moving was selected depending on what it describes. Similarly, here, both "free" and "security" can be about internal or external freedom and security. Capitalizing the word "state" suggests selecting the external aspect of those two words.

+238 (second amendment interpretation 182: About "security" in Post 236)

This could be already noticed, but there is probably no need for the special argument I made for the word "security" to apply within the same environment like the word "free", because the capitalization of the word "state" affects the former the same way it affects the latter. Taking the same examples given there but replacing president with, for example, new president, and writer with, for example, column writer, do not seem to change a thing because of affecting multiple things in each example. (However, while being here I noticed, with regard to the original point of invoking the related environment by what something is called with, that when saying he is a young writer, the word young would more probably be taken as being young age wise not young in the world of writing. But that seems to be the result of an internal local choice blocking the containing one (the word "writer"). That is because of how common is the use of other choices, like the word "novice", to express being young in relation to a field. In any case, I intend to think of more examples and elaborate on that if needed.)  

+237

Related to the preceding post, unless something changes, I still have until August 13 or around that of amicus curiae filing time for case 18-280 but I wanted to put that core first. Although it may lead to same time calculation either way with relation to the respondent's position, my position here is focused merely on interpreting the general applicability part of the Second Amendment. 

+236 (second amendment interpretation 181: That Missed Direct Path)

I want to start here with saying that this is being posted within the time allowed by the rules of the Supreme Court to file an amicus curie brief for case 18-280.

I do not know how the judges of that court decide many other issues if the overwhelming signs here are still not enough to make them do that on this issue. In any case, when I sensed a demand for more argument despite taking the case above, this time I focused more on going directly to specifically what should be done when applying the amendment instead of arguing the aim. It turned out that in addition to the overwhelming number of signs and the big picture here, there is a path that tells what should be done at a much higher specific level. All that is needed for this path is included in the part between the first and second commas, with special dependence on the words "the" and "State". 

The Word "State"

Unless things were preset for a different direction, capitalizing any word implies recognizing it externally according to the meaning of that word. Therefore "free State" refers to the state that is free at that level of granularity in existence. This combination takes the meaning of "security" to be protecting being free at that level.

This applies to states like this country or France or India and even those with internal dictatorships as long as they are free in their external existence. But it is not applicable to internal states like the states in this union individually, even if considered as States in the world because they are not free externally. The constitution itself stated that these states here cannot enter into agreement on their own with a foreign State. Of course, we are talking here about the domain of a general applicability test for the Amendment which has nothing to do with the application domain of its part after the second comma if this test gets passed.

No special treatment being given here. There is so much dependency on taking things this way everywhere that it is very hard to imagine the world running without it. For example if somebody says this president is not carrying out his responsibility correctly why should that be taken as a reference to his official duties, not, for example, his duty to his family? Or if I say he is a good writer about a person, the listener would understand it to mean that the person to whom I referred is good at writing something, even if both the listener and I know that person is much better at something else, like for example being an athlete? The word "writer" does not refer to the action of writing but to the person doing that action and it is the same person being both an athlete and a writer so why referring to him as good writer should be taken as if I said he is good at writing or he writes good? 

The reason behind all that is that at least when what we call something with is clearly a matter of choice that choice also invokes its environment for the intended meaning. Here we clearly have the word "state" chosen to be capitalized. This brought its environment to direct the meaning of the word "free" preceding it. This combination, in turn, brought the environment to direct the meaning of the word "security" because, again, a choice was made to refer to only free States instead of any State. 

But shouldn't being in a construction mode of something give priority to the local meaning and therefore "State" here should be taken as a reference to the States in the union? Despite that the answer to the former is an affirmative one the latter does not follow here and that could be where the first comma shines the most for its effect. That first comma causes temporally escaping the building mode to the outside and that takes the word "State" back to its general meaning instead of the one it acquired because of speaking locally. 

The Word "the"

The Amendment refers to "the security of a free State" not just ''security of a free State". The definition provided by the word "the" for the word "security", preceded in effect the description provided by "a free State" for that same word. Therefore that description applies to "the security" not just "security". This implies that taking the definition provided by the word "the" for the security to which the Amendment refers as only possible for distinguishing a type of things and not also a specific selection within that type itself, is wrong.

Just simply adding a comma immediately after the word "the" would have reversed the precedence in effect described above allowing "the security" to apply on any security related to "a free State" and the definition provided by the word "the" would then serves as selecting from only the different kind of things related to "a free State". But even if there were no such alternative, arguing against that precedence in effect on the ground that it is the result of the position of the words, needs to explain why should we see that the form of expression was given priority over the intended meaning when constructing the Amendment.

Also, since there is no comma preceding the word "the", the security to which the Amendment refers is for the one applicable to the whole world at the State level, not to the environment of any State in the world separately.

And because of having the part of the Amendment before the second comma exists separately and not in a dissolved way as in saying

Because a well regulated Militia being/Is necessary to the security of a free State, the right....

it cannot be argued that the reference to security there, is only for the security at that time.

+235 (second amendment interpretation 180: Was this taken seriously to begin with?)

continued from the preceding post 
Or is it that I am a fool here for jumping directly to a deeper psychological level instead of first pointing out the conscious  level of taking this amendment like a toy? Otherwise how could one explain never seeing anybody taking into account that the part between the first two commas maybe not just establishing but establishing at the present and questioning for the future at the same time? Were a use like in saying The pizza being hot, better eat it now to question the existence of the being hot status to future times not common enough to justify bringing such possibility? How could one take a behaviour at this shallow level as a serious effort? This probably needed to be put on top of what I wrote in the preceding post letting the latter refers only to the subsequent levels of dealing with the interpretation of this amendment. 

+234 (second amendment interpretation 179: Pointing Out The Level of Abnormal Behaviour Here)

In case some are in confusion about this, let me state it clearly myself that not even in his dreams one can find in other fields of intellectual thinking, not even in a field as young as computer programming,  something as huge as what I have been arguing for the Second Amendment here, left open for him anywhere close to this. But look at what the psychological factor does. My desire to see what I am doing here as anywhere equivalent to even a little fraction of itself there intellectually is much bigger than any desire I could have to point out abnormal behaviour here, if there is any reasonable probability to see things otherwise but unfortunately there isn't.  

+233 (second amendment interpretation 178: ",shall" in the Fourth Amendment)

Although it may seem at first glance contrary to the use of the comma preceding "shall" in the second amendment, having the comma before "shall" in the search and seizure amendment is also needed for similar reason. The absence of this comma would have opened the door for or forced seeing "against unreasonable searches and seizures" as merely describing the end purpose not the execution path. That would mean there is nothing saying that violating that right of being secure against those kinds of unreasonable searches and seizures may only come from unreasonable searches and seizures not other things especially reasonable searches and seizures because of how close they are to unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, like how a bodyguard may seek keeping whom he protects not only from getting harmed but from being in the risk of getting harmed to begin with, the direct or implementation purpose of the amendment could be taken as avoiding the potential of those unreasonable searches and seizures not just those unreasonable searches and seizures themselves.