+218 (second amendment interpretation 163: The Change to The Final Version)

The last version of the amendment before the final reads:

 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. (From that article about the development of the Amendment (link in post 214). Although I have an earlier version of that same article mentioning this without the word "best" as the version of the amendment closest to the final chronologically)  

The final version is:

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.

What could be the reason for changing "the best security" to "necessary to the security" and capitalizing the word "state"? For the first part of the question above, in an earlier post, I suggested that the reason could be to avoid understanding "the best" as referring to some unpractical pure/theoretical freedom need, but the blundering I have been making recently here led me to an additional view. This view also supports seeing adjusting that part of the amendment for the kind of environment change consideration, for which my position stands. The "the best security" in the first version above could be understood as describing quality without necessarily a role. In other words, the "of a free state" part could be taken as referring to merely the state to which the militia belongs but not necessarily to that the militia serves as the security there. The final version puts higher priority to describing the role that the militia should take and less priority to where (in terms of relative specificity) that role takes place. It does that by using "necessary to" to sever that dual meaning of role and belonging versus just belonging connection between the "militia" and the "free state" and instead replaces it with defining the role that the militia should be fulfilling, while using only specificity at the level of describing the target where that role should happen as one of the States.

+217 (second amendment interpretation 162: Being Partly Wrong)

I am wrong in my theory about suggesting that they were seeking the no connection between the militia and the free State in order to express more applicability on States. Here is the simple thing to which I should have been better prepared. If I say:

This well, being necessary to a thirsty person, it should be kept accessible    

Despite the use of being there, there is no need to actually have a thirsty person when speaking, for that statement to be true.

Therefore having the militia not belonging to the free State in "being necessary to a free State" does not make a difference since "free State" here is just a place holder for any State. 

However, aside from how I unnecessarily made things more complicated to say "any state", the theory related to limiting that any state generality by capitalizing the word "state" in order to better enable applying being necessary to the security of a free state as a test is not just still standing but significantly stronger today after the support mentioned in the preceding post.   

+216 (second amendment interpretation 161: Capitalized "state" and Local vs.General specificity-2:unexpected support from the development history)

I was just thinking about how the preceding post could be just a headache because of a far fetched probability, when I noticed this very interesting thing in support of it in the development of the amendment (link provided in post +214). I noticed how the "of" in the versions leading to the final, containing "being the best security of a free state" (and also the closest version to the final version according to a saved earlier version I have of that wikipedia article which do not have the word "best"),  imply belonging, unlike, at least at the technical level, the word "to", which when brought into the middle of the connection to that belonging, as part of "necessary to", the word "state" got capitalized.  

+215 (second amendment interpretation 160: Capitalized "state" and Local vs.General specificity)

As much as it is possible to take the being necessary to a free state test as being about any state that for which the militia in question can be seen as satisfying, as much as there is a better chance not to take a circumstantial reason for a change as an essential one (Although that may be much less applicable to circumstantial in depth reasons like the example in post 210. But also notice how the talk here could be a safer way to express the same thing that was intended with the earlier talk about not qualifying the militia). But back then who knew how the world will develop and how that development will spread around? Therefore as much as one extends that no association between any militia and any free state globally as much as the risk would increase for not acknowledging an essential change in an environment because of taking it with a different environment as one. Capitalizing of the word "state" supports identifying or limiting the environment where the being necessary to the security of a free state test should be applied. Even if we assume we are not now, had the word "state" not been capitalized and this country moved from then into an environment that is sufficiently different from even one other part of the world we could differ on whether to take the generality of "being necessary to the security of a free state" over the speaking background of the amendment or that it should be the other way around in applying it to test the environment for the necessity of a militia. Both the absence of specificity in associating the militia with a free state and the capitalization of the word "state" can be seen as working hand in hand to balance the effect of each other toward applying "being necessary to the security of a free state" according to the position for which I argue, by avoiding local specificity while providing a general one, in order to support application continuity or change according to the absence or existence of essential changes where it should be taken into account.   

+214 (second amendment interpretation 159: My preceding three posts)

I again looked at the development of the amendment available to me through the section in the Wikipedia Article about the amendment titled Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights to see how what I said fit. 

Starting from the earliest, post +211, if the capitalization of the word "state" is for the purpose mentioned there, how about all those earlier versions with the word "state" not capitalized? However I also realized that I was wrong in thinking that capitalization is needed for that purpose because I myself did not make good use of the first comma and started from the target instead of the whole environment when measuring changes that may affect the status of the necessity of the militia.

In the post about the word "free", I took that word as referring to freedom in the sense of not being attached to another entity. Even if  describing the militia as being "the best security of a free state (State)" can be seen to fit that, the description of the militia as "the security of a free state" in the saved version I have for this article (I need to look better for more reliable source for the development of the amendment) cant be.

In post +212, the theory there put direction as the purpose for capitalizing the word "state" while taking that capitalization for the side of the collective view imply a purpose of both directional and locational qualities. However, according to the versions in my reference source here, every time the word "military", which supports the directional purpose,  gets mentioned, the word "state" comes with no capitalization. Also, the versions toward the end with the word "state" not capitalized suggest going back and forth on the issue which fits something that requires judgment calls like the purpose in my theory not something at the root of what should have been already decided like that of the collective view interpretation. 

But, I also realized yesterday that despite having those on that side not arguing the type of conditionality in the amendment for which I stand, I may not need to argue against the collective view itself for my purpose. 

              

+213 (second amendment interpretation 158: The word "free" )

The word "free" seems to be added to support the theory of the preceding post because combining it with capitalized "state" seems to leave little room to take things otherwise, if at all.

+212 (second amendment interpretation 157: "State" Not "state"-2 )

On a second thought, I probably shouldn't have given priority for the explanation in the preceding post over my original theory about that capitalization being used for a purpose the need for it seems more in being the reason behind the form of expression used rather than follows from it. My original theory is that that capitalization projects a view from outside to tell us that the necessity of the militia, to which they refer, is about external dangers not something that requires policing the state.  

+211 (second amendment interpretation 156: "State" Not "state" )

Notice how much capitalizing the word "state" to make it refer to specific instance is better, if not even  needed, if the part before the second comma was intended to be followed with the measuring of changes in the environment my position calls for.

+210 (second amendment interpretation 155: Again, The First Comma )

This could be the strongest reason I have suggested for the purpose of the first comma. According to the position for which I argue, what separates claiming that the militia is not necessary for reasons like what we live from much less essential change of situation? For example, decades after the amendment someone could argue that having the union surviving this long removes that need for the militia. The first comma helps in answering that by making the part following it before the second comma refers to the whole environment so circumstantial changes like the one described above would fit much less. 

+209 (second amendment interpretation 154: Conflicts of Mine )

Actually, one may wonder, given that I refused both common interpretations here for the part before the second comma and how I argued against a constitution having an inexecutable part, shouldn't the theory mentioned in the preceding post be an already established position of mine? 

However, the part I want to change here is the level of executability I argued that statements should be in order to be part of a constitution, as much as that was contradicted by what made me move late toward the theory of the preceding post.    

+208 (second amendment interpretation 153: The militia talk)

Now I feel inclined to see not that they wanted to talk about the militia and controlled the talk according to the type of environment but instead that the whole militia reference was brought as a measure for the purpose of how change in the environment could affect that right to keep and bear Arms, to begin with. I am not suggesting a theory that they did not want that right for the sake of the militia but just that they did not want to mention that if it were not for the purpose mentioned above. 

+207 (second amendment interpretation 152: The "well armed" part)

Yes, I can see that the "well armed" part was removed from the version mentioned below. But even if you take that to imply that the purpose of the keep and bear arms clause is to protect the militia from being dismantled like the court says, that still does not contradict the purpose behind that being the role of the militia in relation to the security of a free State. I wanted to point out this, in case there is a confusion .

Also, that same assumed implication also fits how much the number of persons on a fighting side was a big factor then and taking that into account like this by the makers of the amendment adds support to the intention of pointing out the environment at that time with regard to the role of the militia for security, using "being".

By the way, I copy those initial versions from a version of a wikipedia article about the amendment but I just noticed that the word "arms" was not capitalized in the final version mentioned in that section which may call for reviewing the original sources or seek additional secondary ones on the accuracy of the versions written in that section.          

+206 (second amendment interpretation 151: The need for "being"-2)

The first version even used a semicolon and could have used "is" instead of "being" while keeping the form and everything else used there the same rather than saying:

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 no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

  

When the future justifies or explains past action between then and now like here, others get credited for their vision. The makers of this amendment instead had what they said get obscenely taken elsewhere.  

+205 (second amendment interpretation 150: The need for "being")

As if questioning that merely on the final version is not enough, I just want to know how could one allow himself to take choosing the word "being" as none essential choice like the general view here, despite seeing all that insistence on using it throughout the development of the amendment from the very beginning?   

+204 (second amendment interpretation 149: What an example this is!)

How many other examples could one find for people doing what they want to do without any excuse like this one? The signs and fittings for the side for which I argue and against the opposing ones make one feel like being submerged. Anyway, lets point out one additional part of this ocean.

Do you see how, in addition to the suggestion of actuality provided by the use of "being", the change in the development of the amendment from 
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state... to the current version, as it relates to replacing "the security"  with  "necessary to the security", also fits trying to express a practical need not a theoretical purpose about freedom?
This interpretation is also supported by an earlier change from a version using "the best security". 

Like it is mentioned in the preceding post, arguments like this should not be a distraction from how the part before the second comma of the amendment is open, like anything else, to be taken for reasoning as the intended purpose from the onset at least as much as that part is open for any other thing as the intended purpose. 

+203 (second amendment interpretation 148: Why leave the root?)

Looking from point zero, the interpretation and application of the part before the second comma of this amendment seem extremely simple and I wonder how much what I have been writing is actually making things worse by encouraging jumping this starting level.

In order to know how to follow anything I need first to know what it is. Seeing that part as intended for reasoning is by far the strongest of all possibilities. Would anyone argue against  it being taken this way if it were said elsewhere? So why should it be taken otherwise when it comes in a constitution?  

+202 (second amendment interpretation 147: Missing Comma?)

Even with this same level of specificity, wouldn't having the militia itself as the purpose need or at least be better expressed with an additional comma after the word "necessary"? 

+201 (second amendment interpretation 146)

A little while ago I thought of an example that is simple but seems very powerful in illustrating how compelling the explanation suggested in the preceding posts for the role of the additional specificity provided by "to the security" in the Amendment.

Suppose that someone you know had no access to his car so he comes asking to use yours to go to the supermarket saying:

I want to borrow your car keys to go to the supermarket.

You pull the keys from your pocket and give them to him saying:

Okay, go to the supermarket.

There is no problem here.

Now just imagine that your answer was instead:

Okay, go to the supermarket to shop.

How probable is it that that person would respond saying:

Why else would I go to the supermarket?

Do you see how the additional specificity provided by this simple addition of "to shop" made the other party question your position regarding the relationship between people ( or at least this person) and supermarkets (or at least a supermarket intended there)?          

+200 (second amendment interpretation 145: example change)

As usual, I wait until it is late at night to notice my mistakes or shortcomings. Anyway, I want here to improve the example I am giving from the one I gave in the preceding post to this:

If Jack and Jim are employees at the same company then Jack could say something like the sentence below to counter seeing him and Jim as friends:

I occasionally get together with Jim here to do work.

The reason I am doing this is that, in the example of the preceding post, having a material relationship of paying for a service, as the part "to service my car" suggests, could be seen as a change in width instead of  change in depth explanation  because it is not how friends deal with each other and this does not fit as a pass through relation like the one mentioned in the earlier post. In this example, on the other hand, doing work together fits both being friends and not being friends but it is being pointed out in order to give the depth of the purpose to doing the work instead of stopping in the expression at getting together allowing it to be seen as having the depth of friendship.   

+199 (second amendment interpretation 144:)

Counting on the reader or listener to take being as "always" but at the same time explaining the purpose to the level of pointing out "to the security", who talks like that especially if  the purpose is clarification?

On the other hand the explanation suggested in the preceding post is not far fetched from even the way people combine things to express similar intention in everyday life. If, for example, you want to avoid your relationship with Jim, a car mechanic, from being seen as that of a friendship, you could say something like I see Jim  occasionally to service my car to suggest otherwise. Here also, "occasionally" expresses limiting the relationship time wise from a higher frequency  which could be associated with a friendship, while "to service my car" helps in preventing expressing the purpose of seeing Jim from stopping at Jim and letting the door open for understanding a  depth of friendship in that relationship.    

+198 (second amendment interpretation 143: That Level of Avoidance)

By Heaven! people, cant you see that in addition to the time limitation of "being", the rest of that part did not stop at "necessary" or even limit itself to "necessary to a free State" but had to supply the whole "necessary to the security of a free State"?

The militia as not itself the purpose but a mere pass through was expressed in width, time wise using "being", and also in depth by not letting the militia appear as the end contact point in expressing that necessity.   

+197 (second amendment interpretation 142: Quick summary)

Let me give a fast summary of the correct understanding for anyone wanting to stop the outrageous self deceiving going on with the interpretation of this amendment. 

I don't switch languages when I read the amendment. I take the use of the word "being" like I take it when I hear it used in similar way everywhere else and it is that it is establishing a current status and questioning its future existence at the same time.  Reading a constitution does not imply that unless proven otherwise I should take everything on the forceful side. Reasoning precedes that and here it directs to this  understanding. Reasoning also leads us to take the way that"being" part was stated and used to imply referring to an obvious thing and I cant see better fit for that than the difference of the effect of militia size versus machinery between then and now.  
Actually, it seems that the notion of forcibility in a constitution takes its power from seeing it as an execution oriented document. However, ironically, the majority opinion of the court for the part before the second comma in seeing it merely for clarification of an always true fact seems to have abandoned executability but still held on to forcibility.

+196 (second amendment interpretation 141: An Additional Personal Dimension)

I lived my life in a conspiracy where people, because of secret demand of those closer to me to deny my existence, behaved toward me in a shallow way trying to avoid establishing real connection to my existence and because I took that world as real my existence was pushed to become extremely shallow (Believe it or not that, for example, it is only after more than decade of intentional efforts and years beyond the age of forty I was able to come to the realization that when someone has a beautiful voice the measure for that comes from the inside). 

Now on this issue here if I believe that anyone really doesn't see that what I am arguing for is the correct interpretation I feel that I am repeating that same life long mistake of losing my depth because of believing in fake existence.   

+195 (second amendment interpretation 140: Outside And Real Depth Inside Surveying)

Instead of those fabricated mass crimes, one could have served the cause much better bringing interpretation views from outside the country. The Amendment is written with simple words and simple grammars using a language that is either the first or the second language for the whole world. So what is the excuse here? Why don't we see which side with  the very abnormal understanding here?

Actually, even within our borders here how many if asked  about their own understanding and disregard those from others would agree with what are generally seen as the main views here? Even if you believe that interpretations from others have more probability for being correct lets not jump over this actual you level and support circular feeding for a pathological behaviour here in case there is one (The "in case" is written for the opposing side. Otherwise I cant see but pathological explanation here)        

+194 (second amendment interpretation 139)

I got confused in the preceding post. There is a big difference between the argument made there and the one using that first comma and it is that the former is dependent on seeing "being" intended for its lack of guaranteed permanency but the latter is not.   
This difference is not a secondary thing. I was led to the use of that first comma trying to find leads on the mere technical level that "being necessary to the security of a free State" was intended for differentiation and not just causation. Combining the intention for the lack of guaranteed permanency of "being" with the permanency of the causation,  presupposes aiming for that differentiation between the existence of that status and its absence.    

+193 (second amendment interpretation 138)

The role of the first comma pointed out in the preceding posts comes in addition to how intersecting the time limitation or the lack of permanency of "being" with the free undissolved permanent existence of the part before the second comma, by itself, also serves the same purpose.

So even at the pure technical level, it is one leading thing inside another for the conditional meaning of "being necessary to the security of a free State".  
By the way, for much of what have been written in the past, I have been mistakenly using the word " continuity" to mean permanency.     

+192 (second amendment interpretation 137)

It is now more than 24 hours since I wrote the preceding post and therefore, according to the system with which I try to restrict myself, I cannot change it. Otherwise I prefer to add  "(if at all)" to the end of "through merely being an existence"  because, as mentioned previously, the whole thing could be a pure condition without referring to actual existence of the militia being necessary to the security of a free State. The fact that the environment at that time fitted that condition does not by itself imply a reference to that actual environment.  

Although, the content of the preceding post is about the role of the first comma, I did not notice it starting thinking about that. Instead, I was trying to find how to answer why we should take "being necessary to the security of a free State" as being about contrasting that existence with its absence instead of simply being about just that existence, from within the used expression itself without external support, and was led from there to the use of that first comma.       

+191 (second amendment interpretation 136)

Let me add this to expressing the overwhelming strength of the side for which I have been arguing:

The first comma adds help to clarifying the role of "being necessary to the security of a free State" as not connecting the two parts around it through merely being an existence but also through being a condition, by pointing to not only the existence of that status but also to the absence of an opposing status, and that is done by expressing the existence of that status from within a whole or a total that also includes as other possible statuses the militia not being necessary or the unknown.

+190 (second amendment interpretation 135)

I remind again, if the burden of proof falls on my side then bring me your argument for that. Otherwise, if we start on equal footing from the beginning of the Amendment then there is no comparison between any other opposing interpretation and that of my side. The "being" expression at the beginning fits the same expression of every day life which one may use to bring attention to the current status of something suggesting that it could change. Or it could be artistically used to state the permanency of a status indirectly by making the reader do the task of inferring that instead. So which of those two sides do you think the makers of the Amendment had intended?

Beside taking the risk of, not just artisticality, but artisticality against an opposing direct common meaning, and having to depend on that the reader has enough knowledge about the issue to reach the intended inference, there is also the question of why the necessity of a militia is more in need to be pointed out directly than its own everlasting continuity attribute?

Any one interested in real world thinking instead of deceiving the self here?

          

+189 (second amendment interpretation 134)

Continuing from the preceding post:

And what about the rest of the people? This is not something for which one should wait for a guidance toward the correct interpretation from a court. Instead, this is something for which people should ask their court why cant it catch up with them  and make the formal path matches the one everybody sees clearly in the amendment. One could go and ask its judges and if they respond with anything that seems justifying for their position brings it here (Again even anonymous comments are allowed here). I focus more on the court merely because of its authority not because there is any sophistication difficulty giving anyone an excuse not to see how the interpretation I am arguing for is clearly the one out there in the amendment.