+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.