+276 (second amendment interpretation 208: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts - 2 )

Similarly in the "doctor" example of post +267, when technically arguing the role of capitalization, instead of saying that it makes being at the role of a medical doctor necessary, one can say that it prevents the description of the role (we can strip the role as much as we like then change it to a role and a description because even mere presence is a role) component of that word from being taken to be about the person component and therefore the description that a doctor is someone who treats people must be needed, to make the need for a Doctor. 

+275 (second amendment interpretation 207: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts)

I think that I got confused there and did not need the talk about the distinction between status and description I tried to make. Proving  the necessity of  "well regulated" as a description is good enough for the start of my argument. Then, from there, one can say that if this description has no necessary use in the environment then it is unnecessary and that makes the well regulated Militia unnecessary which makes the Militia unnecessary, because the capitalization of the word "militia" applies the well regulated description on the militia directly. In other words, because of the capitalization of the word "militia" one cannot say that  a militia is a group of people and therefore a well regulated militia means a well regulated group of people and therefore  not necessarily well regulated group at some role that group is required to take and therefore the necessity condition of the amendment applies on any militia. Capitalization of the word "militia" prevents that path because it does not allow individual existences for the components of a Militia. Therefore, the group component cannot cancel how it should carry a role it is required to take, by taking the  description of that role and making that description a description of itself (I took the role here as a description of the group but if one takes it as something requiring action then the process just described would need to be applied on the role itself first).        

+274 (second amendment interpretation 206: Another Argument For Capitalized References- 3: A Citation Support ))

While today's grammar text may not be so careful, this is how this grammar book from 1767 titled "A grammar of the English language" by William Ward, explains proper and common nouns on page 19 (After complementing Google on enabling direct copying of the text, below, I noticed that it is not an exact copy. But it is still good enough for my purpose here):

Noun Substantives are of two Sorts, the Proper, and the Common or Appellative. 

Noun Substantives proper are more usually called Proper Names; being intended each to express one single individual Object to which the Name is appropriated ; as, John N—, Mary M , London, Paris, Greece, Italy. The Thames, The Seine, Sec. 

Common or Appellative Substantives are Names, each of which is common to every Object of a whole Class or Species; as a Man, is a Name common to every Man ; and so of other Instances. 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=SsQDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA19

(Despite how the text looks like it was just scanned, I was surprised to see that google enables direct copying of the text. Maybe I need to try the same elsewhere before thinking that I would need to copy the text typing)

One can notice how the definition for  proper noun is worded in a subjective sense in the use of the word "intended" and the word "appropriated" while the definition for common nouns expressed things in a more direct form.

Also, like it was mentioned in the earlier talk about "well regulated Militia" here, the capitalization of the word "object" in "individual Object" requires the reference target of that word to be used directly not through seeing it meant an instance of a class. Of course, this is mentioned here to add supporting fit and not for direct support for my capitalized reference argument which I put closer to the root.  
(Never mind the change of text color in my posts. Google's editor seems to have its own mind)  

+273 (second amendment interpretation 205: Another Argument For Capitalized References- 2) )

A proper noun is described as a name referring to one single thing. In my understanding this singularity is general and therefore the components of that thing do not have individual existences within that thing. The opposing understanding may say that we do not need to go that far and that it is enough for this singularity to be only within a class. 

Names of things (I mean entities or as described by grammar rules "substantive" things)   can be only common nouns or proper nouns. So we ask a maintainer of that latter view : How about, then, classes of things capable of incorporating their own type? (For now the question presented here is related to things already common in existence outside. The capability to use things much less common or even existing just mentally is saved as a backing power).
Lets take the place class of things and discuss the question above. A place can have as part of it another place. So how can understanding singularity of a proper noun as being only within a class fit here? Or should we create further degrees of sub classes to apply singularity here? If so then this more arbitrary path adds significantly to the question of distinguishing the fitting class by the user. We may have two users one of them perceives a class where a thing can be single while the other cannot or do not see that class worthy of being recognized as a class. So what are the rules on the recognition of classes here to guide for common consideration? Also, what is the use for the singularity of a proper noun target?
Instead of this mess, the view mentioned at the beginning here do not require finding singularity but instead it suggests that a proper noun creates that singularity to enable the creation of things.  

+272: Not At The Final Stage

I am still at the individual component building stage of my Second Amendment argument and have not reached the organization and presentation stage for the whole yet.

+271: The Celebratory Mode Here

I talked about this before. Although I do not struggle to sleep worrying about miseries of the world, I am still far from feeling okay with how things look like a party here. There seems to be more feeling of celebration of the positive than regret for the negative. Lets not stray far from the fact  that some could have avoided death had they given the option to live where there are different gun laws which could have happened with different official interpretation for the Second Amendment.   

+270 (second amendment interpretation 204: Another Argument For Capitalized References )

This one is head scratching simple and direct, yet could very probably seen as the best.

Picking things from recognizing that capitalized references are general references to what proper nouns refer to, one could simply just say that those references do not refer to the parts of their targets as individual existences because proper nouns should refer to specific things. Taking the target with its parts also as other things with it, means the reference would be to a group and not specific. 

The concept of a proper noun is similar to the concept of a point in geometry. Even though there is no real end to how any area can remain dividable, we treat points as indivisible things in order to construct the geometrical world.  
The burden is on the opposing side to prove that the requirement that what a proper noun refers to should be specific, stops before reaching the equivalent of the indivisibility of a point in geometry. That is even more required here where the references were not directed toward things known only by their proper noun names. Instead, the capitalized references in the amendment used the unnecessary general reference to proper noun targets only.