I generally don't depend on using momentums so it shouldn't be surprising that I come and go here like this. However, I intend to finish a one comprehensive submission for my second amendment interpretation argument before the supreme court rule on a case that involve taking a second look at the interpretation of that amendment, assuming, of course, that I wont miss knowing that it took such a case when it does.

The biggest ball dropping

The second amendment contains a part that requires updated evaluation to its applicability to the environment. As much as the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was invoked to reinterpret the second amendment and it did not consider that requirement as much as it failed to carry its interpretive role which was directly calling on it to keep up with the changes here. That seems to be the situation since earlier , and probably much earlier, than the second world war. During all that time people paid the price of a very outdated evaluation for the applicability of the second amendment on the newer environments with their lives.  

I probably need to explain this. The connection of Originalism to the purpose of the previous post was to show a view for what I said coming from someone sharing with the framers the absence of connections to the external factors leading to such view. 

By the way, speaking about Originalism, I want to point out that I don't see how "in God we trust" is considered to be not in contradiction with the first amendment and I have been wondering about this in my mind before I knew anything about the interpretations of other amendments with major cases.

Applying Originalism on "because"

As I stated before, I think that taking "being" as "because" misses important part in the meaning. Like any interpretation that aims to make things simpler by ,among other things, limiting itself to what is of concern, interpreting it as such in older times could have been intended to concentrate on its application at that time. Anyway, even if you understand it as "because" then originalism seems to add significantly to why the amendment made its operative clause no longer applicable. There is a much bigger reason for originalism to lead this way here than it is to  lead to  ,for example, that no banning on same sex sexual relations do not follow from the amendments on  liberty or equal protection. Unlike the development in weaponry and the difference between military machinery and that for civilians between then and now, that kind of relationship was already known at the time and something to exclude the application of the amendments on such issues could have been added if it was intended. The argument using that a punishment for such actions continued to exist before and after such amendments imply that the framers did not intend such applications also stands against itself by emphasising the existence and connection and make one wonders why such refusal did not manifest itself in the making of those amendments if the intention was to exclude such issues from the application? That may be more required especially when you have a first amendment that prevent the government from adopting any religion. So one may argue that at least the framers did not want to prevent extending the application to issues like that in the future (The issue with abortion is a different one because they wouldn't need to add exclusion for it if they believed it to be encroaching on another person.So from whatever point that become applicable after conception then abortion would mean crossing on the rights of others and no longer part of the individual rights domain to begin with). The originalism view to the second amendment,on the other hand, requires not to continue on the old evaluation for the necessity of the militia of that time in our time not only because one may assume it being the reason and originalism requires taking into account what existed or can be seen at that time but also because the dependence on that evaluation was actively stated in the first part of the amendment and the objection stated above is not applicable here.                    

Applying Originalism on the use of "being"

Yesterday I watched a part of a video that reminded me of Justice Scalia's position of limiting the interpretation of the constitution to the meaning at the time. I have not yet put much attention and thought about what should my position be or how I define it with regard to that issue of general interpretation path for the constitution. However, regardless of what my position would be ,I wonder how such interpretation view gets applied by default but stopped short of being sufficiently applied when there was an intentional pointing to the current status by using the word "being" in the second amendment and the part about the necessity of a militia was taken to always apply unconditionally? 

Shooting the message using the messenger -2

What I have been seeing here is a very strong effort and inclination to lose focus on the issue using even what was intended to bring focus on the issue for the purpose of losing that focus and treating the victims as a secondary thing used for the purpose of other things.

Of course one can always test the self by assuming the position of victims. But here is a look from another angle to check the seriousness of reactions here toward this issue. Imagine that you are running a business and someone showed you that you have been paying significant costs for a long time for no reason. What would your reaction be? The real reaction would not be just partying on the good news but it would also be accompanied by feeling toward what was lost that may have as strong if not stronger effect on you than  your feeling toward what is coming. Do you see a similar balance here? Remember that this example is about money not human life. Also remember that the example imply a loss associated only with the past not a continuous one like the issue here.

But if you think about it, my claim about the absence of serious and real reaction toward this issue fits with what I have probably stated or hinted at earlier that this issue is taken as a game in this nation. The second amendment excuse and other arguments are simply rationalizations for this psychological game here. 

Nevertheless, although I need to resist that,I have a strong desire to put off talking about that later thing or even discussing gun laws and the effect of guns and respond to opposing claims in that regard despite that I think I can make strong cases until the correct interpretation for the second amendment applied. Why? Because I think that fair and square the correct interpretation for the second amendment would lead to that it stopped supporting a gun ownership right since a long time ago regardless of any other thing. Using the other argument would make me feel as if one is obligated to recover a debt to himself that is very insignificant to a billionaire carrying it by showing a financial hardship he is suffering to that billionaire despite his right to recover that debt regardless of his financial situation.            

Shooting the message using the messenger

This is not shooting the messenger. In fact it is the opposite of it in tactic. Yet, it could serve the same purpose even better. I did not start talking about the ultimate encroachment on victim rights here in order to be used myself as a device for diverting attention from the victims and do not accept being used in that way. 

Concentration on the messenger could be a very effective way to circumvent adopting or even just listening to the message

Real listening to the message here should pass through focusing on the victims and the encroachment on their rights first. I do not accept anything that comes through treating what is equal to me as a secondary thing and do not accept invitations to such cannibalistic party. Otherwise why am I talking about this subject? To defeat my own purpose?

This post here is far from being based on mere speculations. I have what construct a more clear and coherent picture for supporting what I am complaining about here than the opposite view. I have seen very few , if any, reactions to the main issue, from both sides, that clearly conveyed to me a serious level of attention and not a game playing motivated by a psychological complex/wish.   

         

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version - 4

One may also be able to add that the comma is not serving generalizing being necessary to the security of a free state on a "well regulated" militia but instead it is serving generalizing the absence of dependency of being necessary to the security of a free state on a "well regulated" militia.
Unlike the first generalization above, the second generalization is created with applying the amendment and without being dependent on ignoring or circumventing the limitations of "being".

Want vs. lack

The main reason for writing the preceding post was to point out that I was describing a want not a lack with my identity complex claim. If it was understood as a lack then that is probably an additional sign for the existence of this complex because that understanding is coming from the complex itself. Also if the word "lack" above was understood to refer to the lacking of identity then that also could be for this same reason. What I was referring to with absence of a "lack" is the absence of a deficiency that is required to be dealt with through having an identity regardless of whether that is because it is there or it is not needed.  

I actually don't like to speak or think in terms of identity. I used that word here as a compromise between reaching depth and expressiveness. Otherwise I try to go to the root and think in terms of existence of the self and the world not existence of the self in the world.    

Why "being" was taken as "is"- 2

I noticed today that I was not paying enough attention to differentiate between two types of second amendment abuse through the identity complex.One of these is caused by guns while the other is through guns but depends on nothing specific to guns.For example the path I described in the preceding post belongs to the second one not the first of these two because it deals with the amendment directly and has nothing specific to guns.It could have applied on anything else had it been what was the second amendment about.  

Why "being" was taken as "is"

You want another sign that the second amendment was abused in this way here is because of the identity complex I mentioned earlier? Take a look at how "being" was treated like "is" with no apparent interest I can find ,from either side, to take a look at its limitation. I couldn't find any reasonable interpretation for the severity of that. The identity complex psychological explanation on the other hand is clear. Taking "being" as equivalent to "is" is an insistence on the continuity of that being. In other words it means being the same. Being the same serves the identity complex here by emphasising the definition of a frozen period of the real existence in the world.

Defining my position more accurately

First, let me start by saying that my stating that "being necessary to the security of a free state" in the comma before "being" version as being stated from the authority of reality not that of making a constitution is not accurate. The accurate expression should have limited that claim to the necessity stated in that quoted part. Otherwise I am not claiming that stating that the requirement to follow the operative part if a militia is necessary in reality did not come from the authority of writing a constitution.

Also, instead of stating the claim above saying that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution I probably can  

expresse that better in saying that the authority of writing a constitution referred us to the authority of reality.

Second, it does not negate my claim if what is referred to in "being" has additionally the constitutional writing authority in stating it. In fact that could make the signs and explanations I am trying to make here even stronger. My concern is about what was not referred to with that "being". Or,to state that differently, it is about what was referred to through the limitations of "being" outside that being. In fact , I probably shouldn't be required to make a case for my reality dependency argument here since it seems to be passively established on its own through the limitations of "being". In other words what I am doing here seems to be equivalent to an affirmative defense against the current interpretation which itself should have carried the burden of making a case for not taking into account the limitations of "being". From the first time I read the amendment I wondered about how unnaturally that "being" seems to be taken and understood away from its limitations. Who on earth would use "being" in that way to refer to continuity of something against the limitation resistance of that same "being"? I continue to find no justification for that understanding. 

One thing that is necessary to be looked at  is if the being referred to in the amendment has sufficiently changed to a different being making the militia unnecessary in current reality. If the answer is yes then the operative clause would stop being applicable. The answer to that, at least because of the insufficiency compared to modern weapons, has been yes for a very long time.  

[(Added 5/2/14) Saying that it does not negate my claim if what is referred to in "being" has additionally the constitutional writing authority in stating it was wrong or because it would stand against my argument through the lacking of the ability to make the two versions of the amendment ratify or even just fit each other]

The absence of a main conjunction

Notes that understanding the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of  a free state" as always true coming from the authority of writing a constitution does not give a good reason for not using a conjunction to connect to the operative clause. Actually saying something like :
Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
while would still be faced with the same question of if they did not want to restrict the operative clause by the first one why did not they put the operative clause first, the use of "is" instead of "being" would make a better case for a continuity claim regarding a  militia being necessary to the security of a free state. 
Understanding the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of  a free state" as coming from the authority of reality and intended to reason with us, on the other hand, can more sufficiently explain the absence of a conjunction to the operative clause. Had the amendment been stated as, for example, this:

If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people...

it would have been still suffering from the same shortcomings of the comma-less before "being" version. That is because ,as mentioned earlier,the comma after being serves both the purpose of stating the necessity as a condition on a militia and also the purpose of stating that satisfying that condition is dependant on the environment in general and not the militia itself as long as it is "well regulated". The example above satisfies only the first of these two intentions. 

 

Difference in intentions or just their expressions?

Accepting both the comma and comma-less before "being" versions makes it very probable that the difference in what was intended is not deep or important. The understanding for "being necessary to the security of a free state" for which I argue creates a difference in  only the expressions of these two versions instead of also the intentions and concepts behind them that seems to fit  sufficiently into that category much more than the other alternative. That is because the alternative of understanding that part as being stated from the authority of writing a constitution and always true gives no reason for causing differences in expressing it. If it came from the authority of writing a constitution what was that those who made the amendment were struggling in expressing? Yes, stating something just for clarifying things does not serve the original purpose of a constitution being a do and don't guide. But that would be, at worst, just like adding fluff  to the constitution which is not worthy of causing this difference in the versions of the amendment regarding the existence of the comma before "being".
But on the other hand the understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution, although serves better the purpose of a constitution being an execution book because it affect the execution of the operative part, is much more sufficient reason to cause a cautious attempt  in using these two versions of the amendment to avoid misleading.  
Another thing that supports that the difference was only in the expressions and not   the intentions and concepts behind these two expressions is how in the development process the alternative version ,which was the comma-less before "being" version, came later  than many, if not most, comma versions and two weeks or more after proposing the bill of rights. That is because if the difference was in the intentions and concepts that difference would have more probably manifested itself clearly earlier than that especially for something as substantial as stating that part as being always true according to the alternative understanding mentioned earlier. 

What Was Ratified?

Understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution is not just simply supported by that it makes combining the two versions fits better but is required because one of them ratifies the other. To show that in more detailed way lets ask ourselves this question first:

What Was Ratified?

If the answer is that what was ratified is what is shared between these two versions then it is clear that the comma-less before "being" version does not state "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact. That means taking that part as a fact will not be part of the amendment and therefore we do not need to argue about its meaning.

If ,on the other hand, the answer is that what was ratified is the comma before "being" Congress version then the two versions need to be seen as completely equivalent to each other. It is not hard to see the comma before "being" version as stating the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" as both a fact and a condition. In fact, this was how I naturally understood it the first time I looked at it without much thinking. But how about the comma-less before "being" version which states the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" as only a condition and not a fact? The absence of that part as a fact can only leave it for  reality reasoning and indicates that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution. In addition, taking into account that the fact in the comma version states the necessity of a militia and the condition in the comma-less version calls on following what is necessary, shows how suitable it is for that fact to be left to reasoning.

Notes how not ratifying that "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact means it is not part of the constitution as a fact expresses that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution. Another way to look at that is in how something in the constitution that was stated from the authority of reality rather than that of writing a constitution is seen as part of the constitution but is not really a direct part of what a constitution serves in its purpose of being a do and don't guide and how that expressed in having that part as a fact in one version and not the other. It may be worthy of being mentioned again that although stating that part from the authority of writing a constitution may not makes it a direct part of what a constitution is intended to serve it is still makes it serves better the purpose of making a constitution through affecting the execution of the operative clause than the other alternative that makes it being stated from the authority of writing a constitution but affects the execution of the operative clause in no way and serves no execution purpose other than clarifying a purpose.  

Why so much insistence on "being"?

Why it seems that all versions of the amendment including those through the development use "being" when stating the necessity of a militia? If it is just an artistic expression why wasn't it changed?

If it serves the same purpose as ,for example, "is" or similar things why wasn't it replaced by that even in any suggested version through the development?

Even the initial proposal which stated

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security.."  did not say that "..;a well armed and well regulated militia IS the best security..".

Clearly, seeing that something gets used that much  significantly more than what seem to be equivalent others pushes for thinking about the difference. 
What is the difference between "being" and words like "is"?

What "being" serves and what differentiates it from the like of "is"

is that it states directly only the existence of what is stated at the current time. It clearly does not state the continuity of what is stated. Instead , that continuity is dependent on the absence of changes. Otherwise, "being" clearly and strongly emphasizes that it does not contain any continuity in itself.

Such insitance on using "being" even more strongly suggests an intention to restricting the "necessary to the security of a free state" description to the time of making the amendment and opening the door for testing its continuity in the future.        

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version - 3

Another way to express that is to say:

The comma-less before "being" version of the amendment more clearly makes "being necessary to the security of a free state" a condition on a militia.The comma before "being" version of the amendment shows how looking for the satisfaction of that condition should be done. It does that through the use of the comma before "being". This comma changes the "being necessary to the security of a free state" from a condition to a fact. The generality that comes from stating "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact in comparison with stating it as a condition was not intended for the purpose of stating that it remains continuously true regardless of reality changes. On the contrary, the word "being" directly points only to the applicability of what it states in the current time. No, that generality is the result of an intention to state the origin of what makes a militia being "necessary to the security of a free state" is the general environment at the time and not the militia itself as long as it is "well regulated". 

 

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version - 2

One could also say that the generality created by the use of the comma before "being" was not to state the endless continuity of the applicability of  "necessary to the security of a free state" on a "well regulated" militia as the always true understanding of that part would imply. Instead the generality created by the use of that comma was to state the origin of  "necessary to the security of a free state" in a "well regulated" militia as being the general environment in which it existed and not  the "well regulated" militia itself.   

Submitting an Amicus Brief

Too bad, it seems that because I am not a lawyer I am not allowed to send the Supreme Court an Amicus brief if it takes a case that may involve taking a second look at the second amendment.

Is a seperate amendment based sufficiency argument necessary?

I noticed yesterday that even in my task of trying to make my case from the second amendment itself, it is not necessary to make a separate sufficiency argument from the amendment. Instead, my other argument that the "necessary to the security of a free state" did not come from the authority of writing a constitution as is the case with the do and don't parts of the constitution and was not intended to be taken as always true regardless of reality  would by itself allow considering the sufficiency part if it is understood to be a part of being "necessary".

Position of the operative clause - 2

In this post

http://druggedonguns.blogspot.com/2014/02/position-of-operative-clause.html

I argued that if the part before the operative one of the second amendment was not intended to restrict the operative clause and the operative clause always applies then the operative clause would have been placed in a much more needed position and fits much better at the beginning instead of the arrangement through which the amendment was expressed.

Today I noticed that such arrangement not only was not chosen but was explicitly avoided as it came in this initially suggested wording

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but..."

LINK

(more details in the Wikipedia article)

Why different versions of the second amendment were allowed?

AS you can see ,unlike the other alternative, understanding the "necessary to the security of a free state" as being reality dependent makes sense from both the version with and the one without comma before "being". It fits how each version served to concentrate on stating part of the purpose and shows how combining the two states  a needed whole. By doing that it also answers an important question it is not clear how it could be addressed using the other alternative understanding. That question is how is it possible to accept that those who put that much effort arguing and negotiating the details of expressing the amendment allows confusing people with two version that do not connect to or fit each other like that? I don't know if the change in other commas or capitalizations makes as much essential differences as the existence or absence of the comma before "being" but I know that  understanding the "necessary to the security of a free state" as being reality dependent provides a way, if not the only way, to at least solve that part of the puzzle. After all, remember that the change in the wording of developing the amendment from September 4 to 9 of same month in 1789 which I spoke about in a previous post shows clearly that attention was being paid to the existing commas and in the case of the one before "being" it is a very remote probability that with that attention the significance of its existence or removal was failed to be recognized.

Raising that point reminds me of a related similar one I thought about earlier. How much does it fit to think that those who even refused to allow the government to support the establishment of any religion would in the same bill establish a concept in the reasoning (or clarifying as some may like to call it) part of the second amendment with the intention for that reasoning or clarifying part to be taken as a fact that is always true to begin with? Where else in the entire constitution a concept was intended to be forced in the same way?As I said earlier, the purpose of a constitution is about do and don't not forcing concepts. 

 

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version

I think that there are overwhelming signs and evidences that the first comma in the congress version of the second amendment was intended to make stating "necessary to the security of a free state" from the authority of reality rather than that of making a constitution. Nevertheless while it may not be required, it would still be better if the benefit of the comma can be seen.

It seems to me that one of the big benefits of the first comma is that it directs thinking for evaluating the necessity of a militia (and that includes its sufficiency) to be on the basis of the existing environment  at the time  and applying generally on  any "well regulated" militia there rather than about a specific militia creation. That was emphasized more with the use of "being" instead of ,for example, "which is".

In other words the comma version shows that although the comma-less version makes the "necessary to the security of a free state" a requirement on the "well regulated" militia, satisfying or not satisfying that requirement actually dose not come from the militia itself and is not dependent on any specific structure or composition (other than being "well regulated") but is dependent on the  environment and  leads to one end result applying on any variation of a "well regulated" militia the same way.

"being the best security"

Several days ago I made a post about finding how the relative comparison "best" was changed to the non-comparative word "necessary" and how that provides even more support for the argument related to the need for the sufficiency of the militia in our modern weapon world.But then I found out that change was not direct and there were other middle step(s) so I deleted the post since it was still less than 24 hours old.In this post I am going back to that point again.

We can see that the "being the best security" description for the militia started early in the process of making the amendment. That continued from June 8 1789

LINK
to September 4 of the same year as shown by this Senate version:

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

LINK

(click "PREV IMAGE" to see the date of "FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1789")

Assuming that I am not missing other intermediate step(s), that was changed also by the Senate in September 9 of the same year to:

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
LINK

(click "PREV IMAGE" to see the date of "WEDENSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789")

As you can see the relative comparison "best" was removed and replaced by a condition related to satisfying "being the security" expressed through the removal of the comma before "being". In other words we again reach similar conclusion related to the sufficiency of a militia similar to the earlier one that was missing this intermediate step.

Notice how that was supported again by the ratified version.

If one hesitates to use the word "removal" and instead try to be content with "omission" with the ratified version,this was a pure intentional removal for the comma before "being".

Now we see that the "being necessary for the security of a free state" in the Congress comma version being clamped from the development side by the same congress before making the amendment then later by the interpretation side through the ratified version after making the amendment as being intended to be reality dependent instead of always true.  

All the related data and links were found through the Wikipedia article about the second amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution  

The Ratified Version of the Second Amendment - 3

One could also say that the ratified version makes it clear that the stating of fact in saying a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state comes from the authority of reality, which is available to anyone arguing for anything, and not the authority of writing a constitution. 

The Ratified Version of the Second Amendment - 2

I think that having two versions of the amendment can be a helping thing instead of a troubling thing when combined. With regard to the omission of the first comma in the ratified version, it tells us that whether a militia is necessary to the security of a free state or not is left to our good judgment and is not part of what we are required to follow in the amendment.   

The Ratified Version of the Second Amendmen

Notice that the text of the ratified version of the second amendment fits with my interpretation that the necessity of the militia was not intended to be imposed as a fact that is always true. It does that by omitting the first comma which is the only thing that indicates telling a fact (regardless of how was it intended to be taken).

Without that comma there doesn't seem to be any stating for the necessity of the militia as a fact .   

Instead the operative clause is connected to the beginning clause similar to the connection in this statement:

A car being ready to move, the passengers must buckle their seat belts.

Even if that statement is understood when stated to indicate that there is a car being ready to move that understanding comes from taking into account why the speaker is saying that not because the statement itself states that fact.

Even if I am wrong in saying that there is no stating for the necessity of the militia as a fact there, there is still a big significance in not emphasizing that with the coma. Instead what we see is that the reasoning connection being more emphasized in the text of the ratified version in comparison with whether facts at that time satisfies that reasoning. That shows what was being understood as the main intention behind the amendment. It is not just like any interpretation that came from that period because that is an interpretation that was accepted in as much as it was expressed as stated in the text of the ratified version of the amendment.  

Blaming the constitution

Initially I wanted to post this in a place where I am arguing for better access to the judicial system then thought that it can also serves a better purpose here.

It might has been well over a century since the second amendment became useless for the purpose for which it was created while its opportunity cost in terms of danger on civilian life became more and more significant. Nevertheless you continued your implementation of it blaming that on the constitution. Similar to how some claim serving a religion in order to satisfy some psychological issues, it seems that you continued this in service of your own psychological issues.

The court system in this country still acts like it is a century old or more when it comes to serving complaints on defendants and the related FRCP Rule 4. Courts and plaintiffs spends considerable time working for and arguing for serving the defendants in a complaint through methods and means that represented all the available communication means at those old times. Judges who are supposed to be able to evaluate the reasonability in things far from their profession implement this meaningless wasting of resources limitations that serves no reasonable purpose.Where is the reasonability when a defendant comes to the court to argue for dismissal of a complaint because he was not "served" according to these old methods even though by his coming to the court he acknowledges knowing about the complaint filed against him. In fact, instead of worrying that someone who did not appear was not served, courts work the opposite way. Courts take proof of service on its face and count the defendant as being served unless he or she appears to contest that service. 

Now let me ask you this: Did the constitution also tells you to do that? The "due process" requirement as it relates to the subject here is about making the defendant know about the complaint being filed on him regardless of the kind of the reasonable manner or mechanism used to achieve that. No, the constitution did not tell you to do that. But like the issue with the second amendment it shows fixation on old times to create an identity.