Before starting with the amendment, although may not be necessary, I want to add this argument to the part related to the need to refer to things through their existence in the future in order to have the authority of the Constitution applied to them, in post 286. What is being added here is the answer to the question that if there are multiple things with different time sequence preceding the existence of the Constitution, how can just simple future reference like saying "shall" refer to the future that is further away? The answer is that the sequence in time here is just a sequence required for the order. It is not like there is something that needs to be done and therefore enough time should be reserved for it. Therefore regardless of how soon the action corresponding to that "shall" can happen, there is always enough time preceding it for all the precedences in time there.
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.
We need here to revisit the concept of definite and indefinite articles in the English grammar. This revisit starts with going far enough to ask why should there be an indefinite article to begin with? One can easily see the need for the definite article to provide its special designation. But why not use the original form of the word for the indefinite reference? After all anything is either known or unknown. The answer to this question comes in two parts. First, with regard to using just the original form of a common noun in a sentence the answer is that doing that can only enable referring to every existing instance of that common noun. This lacking may not be apparent, because having the definition of a noun of that type refers to only one instance, and the singularity of the referring action itself in a sentence may seem not to allow more than one instance, even though they do not. For example, logically, one cannot say Car needs maintenance to refer to the need for maintenance for only one car in the entire existence. Instead that sentence conveys that every car needs maintenance, even though the word "car" refers to one car, and even with assuming that sentence was said only once. That is because the number of applications for that sentence depends on the number of fits it has. There is a fit for the word "car" wherever there is a car, and therefore there is a fit for the sentence wherever there is a car.
The second part of the answer for the question above is about trying to fix that multiplicity problem by adding the number of instances to the common noun as in One car needs maintenance. Yes that solves the multiplicity problem but the indefiniteness is directed toward the status of being in that number of instances not the instance itself.
Instead, the indefinite article deals with the problem of multiplicity while at the same time applies the indefiniteness to the targeted instance itself by referring to the abstract version of that common noun, which is shared by every instance. And indefiniteness through this way can also be applied to more than one instance through a new common noun which every instance of it has that number of instances as in A set of two cars need maintenance. Let's take a look at how things work here.
The abstract of a common noun brings with itself as many as required instances of that common noun for the sentence containing the reference to the abstract to be valid. So, for example, even though "A car" in "A car needs maintenance" is just an abstract reference on its own, in this sentence it refers to one car if the sentence is taken as applicable for the outside world (what I call the actuality ). In other words, the reference to the car abstract here extends through that abstract to include one instance. This is not something special just for here. For example, depending on the environment with regard to which it is said, the sentence Jim lifted the boxes can be correct even if Jim did not do that by himself but used a forklift machine or hired other people to do the lifting. Because if Jim has that capability, the reference to Jim can reach that capability through him and therefore includes that capability. However, unlike the various possibilities in this analogy, like, for example, being in a sport lifting competition and therefore using a forklift is considered invalid and therefore it is not part of Jim capabilities if the sentence was said to be applicable on that environment, here we are concerned about the validity of the sentence according to the existence in the world in general not any specific environment. Therefore we do not have a possibility of invalidity here. Also, while Jim could have lifted the boxes without the help of a forklift even if he is allowed to use that machine, there is no other valid option here. If the reference to the abstract of a common noun is intended for the world outside then it must be taken to extend to actual instance(s), with the assumption of validity of the sentence. Therefore the reference to the abstract of a common noun can include instance(s) to fit the requirement of the sentence for actual existence of those instance(s). So in a sentence like A car needs maintenance, the reference to the abstract extends to include only one instance (one car). That is because the existence requirement of the sentence is satisfied by one instance, and one instance is included with any more than one.
Now let's take the discussion to our core interest here. If, there is a comma after the reference to the abstract version of the common noun, then the abstract should be completely constructed according to the actuality requirement if it exist. That means extending the reference, to the abstract, to include every instance of that common noun at the same time. So while A car needs maintenance refers to only one instance, A car, needs maintenance refers to every instance, all at once. Similarly, the reference to the abstract version of well regulated Militia in the amendment extends through that abstract to include in its reference every well regulated Militia, all at the same time. "all at the same time" here is intended to mean that the reference does not have the single instance at time limitation like if the word "any" was used instead, not that the instances are referred to collectively.
Grammer guys may frown at what they may call separating the subject from the verb with a comma. But in situations like this the comma is separating only the text while in fact needed to construct the subject. Although any frowning for this issue may be considerably less for such comma use with the amendment than that with the finite verb example I used, if at all.
Capitalizing the word "Militia" makes the well regulated Militia refers to one single thing. That in turn requires that all the instances of a well regulated Militia to which the reference to that abstract is extended must be taken as one single thing. So, it is that group as one single thing, that must be necessary to the security of a free State.
The above means that "being necessary to the security of a free State", is about neither just any nor every well regulated Militia. Instead it is a determination which, although may be reached through deciding the necessity of individual members of the group of all well regulated Militias, its end result is about that group as one single thing with regard to the security of a free State. In other words, the end result here is of the kind that is, like they say, a "package deal". And the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part also seems familiar, like when we say, for example, "A grocery store should provide the food of a person" without intending the meaning of that to be necessarily taken starting from the reference to the person as fixed locality (Although I am not giving that much priority here because either way would not matter to my position).
"security of a free State" is about the security of the state as one single thing in the world. It is not about security of the people of the State. I kept looking for a conclusive technical argument for that until I noticed how abnormal was that. The word "of", despite how often and easily it can be taken without doubting to what thing it refers, seems to be extremely rarely dealt with like that (Probably because of how it is, like the word "the", close to the root of thinking). And the Constitution itself seems to contain so much dependencies on the word "of" being taken much closer to that level than the technicality I insisted on. I actually began questioning my way starting from the Constitution itself after noticing how "a Citizen of the United States" in Article 1 Section 2, according to the level of technicality I am looking for, is open to mean a citizenship from a different country even though it is probably never occurs to anyone to be understood that way. That quoted part was for two things at the same existing level environment-wise. Here on the other hand, first we have the capitalization of the word "State" indicating that the target reference should be taken as one single thing. And unlike the people themselves, security of the people of the State is not part of the definition of a State. Then on top of that we have the outer environment brought to focus by describing the State as free there.
In addition to all that we do not just have "security of a free State" but "the security of a free State". On the other hand, in the quoted part above, for example, the indefinite article was used. That part could have been written as one of the Citizens of the United States.
Let's now get back to compare the theory for the indefinite article that was presented here with the common grammer.
First, we can see how this going back to the shared abstract root explains why words like, for example, "some" is not considered an indefinite article and why indefinite articles cannot be used with more than one instance of a common noun. Otherwise, if we take common nouns directly at the instance level then what prevents the ambiguity of the indefinite article from getting applied to more than one instance? And even at just the individual things level, what prevents words like "any", or "one" as pronoun, from being included in the indefinite Article designation of the English language if indefiniteness is about referring to instances of common nouns directly? The common English grammar also does not explain why the word "one" as adjective does not need an indefinite article.
And although the abstract theory here can stand on its own without the justification for the need for indefinite article, that was presented at the beginning here, that explanation fits dedicating the indefinite article to only countable things, and I cannot see any other solution for that multiplicity problem except through this abstract theory.
One can also see how the theory here fits various depth usage of the indefinite article in comparison with the usage of the word "any" . For example, a person may say I need a chair.. any chair. On the other hand, a person may say to people focussing on solving some problem I have an idea, not I have any idea to bring attention to what that person wants to suggest with regard to solving that problem. Viewing a thing through its abstract root, as suggested by the abstract theory here, is what opens the door for this dual capability for the indefinite article to be similar or contrasted against the word "any" like this, by enabling the choice for focussing on the root to emphasise quality, or focussing on the instance extended from that root to emphasise commonality.
Like it is pointed out at the beginning of the discussion here, if both definiteness and indefiniteness are based on being known or unknown at the instance level, then why do we need both? Why is it that the absence of the definite article from a noun phrase does not imply indefiniteness? Actually, that is the way things work in my native language. In Arabic there is only the equivalent of the definite article. A word for word translation for, for example, the incorrect sentence Man went to big garden is correct in Arabic and equivalent to A Man went to a big garden, except that "big garden" becomes "garden big" there. I was surprised to find that instead of seeing it just a way to pronounce indefinite nouns, some linguists apparently take the short vowel of the تنوين type, that often comes with common nouns when they come without the the equivalent in use to definite article in English, as maker of indefiniteness like the indefinite Article in English. But there is no Arabic grammar book stating تنوين as indefinite Article like the English grammar books state "a/an" as the indefinite Article. In addition, unlike the English language, that same thing also comes with plural and uncountable things. For example it comes with nouns like "water" and "justice". A word for word translation to Arabic for, for example, This is not justice (except for omitting the secondary verb because there is no such a requirement there) would also have the word "justice" take the تنوين. Even proper nouns there would take that تنوين unless they belong to a class of words described as ممنوع من الصرف. On the other hand تنوين never comes with a word preceded by the Arabic designation that is equivalent in use to the definite article in English.
We also should not miss that the definiteness and indefiniteness is explained in the English language at the root in terms of the Articles themselves not the noun phrase they may come with. The etymology of the word "Article" takes it back to mean a Joint. Also every other meaning in the dictionaries is far from suggesting being a seperate meaning. Instead those other meanings fit better as applications of that original meaning. Like those other meanings, here also things fit very reasonably with the word "Article" means "Joint". A Joint is where branching to other things occur, and that is all what we need to support the theory that the indefinite references in the English language go through the abstract version of the common noun which its instance(s) is/are the intended target. Because we can see that our Joints here, depending on their type, can lead us to an identity, and therefore we call that Joint, definite, or lead us to no identity and therefore we call that Joint, indefinite. In other words, the burden is on the opposing side to prove that there is for our Joints here any other related thing beyond the role like the basic role of a pointer or a container. Describing a Pointer or a Container according to the general basic role of a Pointer or a Container involves nothing more than if they point at or contain something or not. For the indefinite Article the only way to being indefinite but still end up pointing at one instance of something is to point at the abstract version of that thing.
Related to the argument above, we see that in the grammar books, or at least the older ones, "the" and "a/an" are called "Articles". Although in those books those words are sometimes also called "articles", there is no conflict here because the singularity is also one of the possible meanings of that. What gives even more support to this is how it seems that the capitalized forms are closer to the core introduction and explanation for the topic of definiteness and indefiniteness in the language.The capitalization of the word "Article" requires it to be taken as one single thing. Therefore it cannot exist just as a description to its content without its main role, like for example the word "dish" as in saying That sheff made delicious dishes.
And while the same reasons for the argument above would have existed even if the English Articles were called through names that include words other than "definite" and "indefinite", doesn't the argument above fits better with the use of those words than taking definiteness and indefiniteness as if they are equivalent to knowing and not knowing like how the common grammar seems to take them? Defintness is related to existence with the capability to be known not the knowing itself. For example, one could say about a closed box There could be a definite thing there. Clearly "known" as the meaning for "definite" does not fit that if no one knows that there is something in that box.
One more thing to point out and it is that the theory here shouldn't be taken to imply that the significance of the designation related to applying the definite or indefinite articles needs to be taken differently. The way a thing may be used or even made for is not necessarily the mechanism of how it works.
