+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.