+167

Continuing from the preceding post

How much discrepancy there is in the punishment in the federal criminal law let alone that among the states?

In addition to having better laws as the primary solution  there seems to be a helping thing that could be used federally and also for any state that has in its constitution the power for an entity to pardon and commute sentences. For example, Congress could itself vote or delegate to an entity that could also be of its creation voting on recommending to the President pardoning or commuting the sentence for cases like the one mentioned in the preceding post. In other words, the constitutional power of the President to pardon and commute sentencing can be used to help correct or fine-tune application of the law.

Cases like this where no moral authority is needed to forgive for taking the right of a victim to live, are much more suitable for taking into consideration reducing punishment because of factors that could have affected a person toward choosing the criminal path. At least the victims themselves in the case mentioned in the preceding post for example could have been asked if a punishment like the one that has already passed now is enough as a punishment.   

+166

THIS is the guy to whom I was referring in the preceding post and THIS is his story according to the show.

The guy showed none violent tendency and despite his adventurous risk taking attitude with intolerance to stay in prison. Also his failing to make the girls support his alibi does not support him being a psychopath otherwise he probably would have been better at managing his personal relationships. 

Not much behaviour was reported for his two young accomplices but one could hardly see them as professional criminals with their accentual firing and probably also the way they tried to distance themselves from the situation.

HERE is another link for the sentencing which I am still not clear if it does or does not include the possibility for parole. In any case I wonder how much a behaviour suggesting respecting a line for human life not to be crossed was taken into consideration in comparison with other cases where that line was crossed. 

      

+165

I just watched a TV real story show about a guy who was sentenced to life in prison without parole. While others could kill and get relatively low punishments that gets even lower and lower with additional reasons starting from not being "premeditated" and going on, this guy, although  participated in armed robbery and abduction of the bank teller to do that and escaped multiple times from prison and done another bank robbery, never pulled the trigger on anyone. He was only 19 and who knows how after several years in prison and with genuine reforming effort done to him his character could change if the tendency for crime repetition was the reason for that sentence. So, I don't know how much of that sentencing was because people here see things upside down and how much of it because the guy is black.        

+164

Continuing from the preceding post:

I have just chosen to always moderate before letting a comment published, in order to be informed about the existence of the comment. This means until I read the comment it will not be published. This is the only way I found here to enable finding what comments were posted throughout my blog without actively looking at all my posts. Otherwise I am not inclined to do a censorship. I provided a feed back about the issue and letting a comment wait may not be a requirement to be emailed about its existence in the future.

+163

I have been wondering why with all those in the public agreeing with the stand of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment no body argue back against what I write here. However, I just noticed a little while ago that I had no comment capability by anonymous authors for this blog so I changed that. Now anyone can comment without revealing any identity.   

+162 (second amendment interpretation 118)

Upon reviewing what I wrote in the preceding post, I don't think I should have at this point argued for actively wanting the first comma to state "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a conditional status. That is because the more deserving reason for the first comma still seems to be the one related to prevent this quoted part from carrying a meaning of being about qualifying the kind of militia instead of being about the situation or the environment in general. However, this clearly does not include the argument about the default implication of that first comma for stating an if status. 

+161 (second amendment interpretation 117)

continuing from the preceding post

If we assume intending to avoid stating actuality in the part before the second comma, without the first comma, "being", which is needed to avoid continuity, seems to make that part less fit for the purpose. So we can say that we are doing the best we can. On the other hand, if you want to state an always true fact why would you choose to trap yourself in "being" to begin with?

Instead of taking the first comma as being intended to bring "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a fact, one can take the purpose as intending to bring that as a whole situation. Actually this is what follows directly from the role of the first comma here. It simply divided what otherwise would have been one situation into two changing the connection to a conditional one. The stating a fact view, on the other hand, adds the purpose of intending that separation to state a general fact to comeback and reestablish that connection.

+160 (second amendment interpretation 116)

continuing from the preceding post

Although the other side swims in unfitting things and signs against it, I find it hard to tolerate the appearance of even one. The first comma is more than tolerable to the position of the side demanding from the opposing one showing stating actual existence for the situation described in the part before the second comma. The view that the first comma is intended to state a fact is here countered with the view that it helps expressing the existence of the necessity to the security of a free State as the issue not the merits of that existence. 

+159 (second amendment interpretation 115)

It seems that while discussing whether the part before the second comma is for reasoning or stating a fact, one thing could become easily skipped unnoticed. That thing is about why  that part should be taken as being intended to refer to a real occurrence to begin with? Unlike the part after, the part before that comma by itself does not constitute a complete sentence for it to be taken as referring to the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the actual status at that time. Neither was there a use for a word like "because" to combine that part with the one following it and thereby extend the actual occurrence of the latter to the whole. Instead the part before the second comma was kept clean and undissolved. Without proof of actual occurrence, this leaves only its being a condition (like in an "if" statement) as how the part before the second comma should be taken and that clearly imply reasoning.  

Looking at the part after the second comma as immediately applicable does not necessarily need to be based on directly following it from the part before that comma being intended to refer to actual occurrence. Instead the part after that comma can also follow from applying the part before that comma as a mere condition first. 

That was a cautious approach. But on a second thought, why do we even need to by default accept that the part after the second comma is an actual order? It came with another part without even being the first in that combination to start with its existence. So why cant the Amendment be just telling us that when the part before that comma exist then the part after it also exist (as an obligation)?   
What follows from that is that even the initial applicability of the Amendment is not built into it.

+158

For whatever reason, real or psychological, the final court is not taking Second Amendment cases, why in the mean time it does not tell the lower courts that opinions related to the matter, like that of the Heller case, should be taken as mere arguments and are not required to be followed until further notice?  The additional input from those courts could provide questions to somebody taking a position like mine here while this court can look at both that additional input and its counter arguments. The current situation of having the appellate courts make varying interpretations for how to follow the opinions of this court regarding the Second Amendment should not be confused as allowing those courts to interpret the Amendment according to what they believe from the root. If the court is paused on this matter (even if because of being possessed by some evil spirit) then why not take advantage from this pause throughout all the judicial process not just its last point? I was thinking today why don't I look for how appellate courts were ruling on Second Amendment cases before the Heller case but even that could be just following previous rulings by this court on the matter and far from being the result of original thinking of those courts (Although I realized that the current pause by this court on the matter is probably more of the result of their voting on cases than it is being itself a decision that was agreed upon).      
For us outside, it also needs to be noticed that it is not helping the cause when doing things like, for example, possessing a stun gun but then go to this court complaining of the consequences of a state law against that and make this court find no alternative to save the complaining party except by applying its previous opinions about the Second Amendment while it wants to pause from doing that. In other words, if you believe that the Second Amendment no longer guarantees a right to possession of Arms then that would go both ways, for and against you, even when your state make a decision as  ridiculous as forbidding stun guns but allowing real ones. 

+157: Aggressor Over Victim "Justice System"

It occurred to me a while ago that had somebody told people when they started to find it hard to tolerate an eye for an eye system that this will extend to the issue of a death penalty for the killer, who would have believed him? However, at least here we have the question of doing irreversible thing and  the level of certainty for the guilt. On the other hand there are things that seems to be practiced here and probably other Western Countries that defy justice and provide no justification except probably to serve in creating a group identity. This identity urge seems so strong that, having moved from obvious discrimination, it sought itself a refuge in making nonsensical punishment laws and seeing them like normal things. I am referring to those laws that reduce punishment if the crime was not "premeditated". Not just that they defy the logic of the equality premise from the start, they do it to an astonishing level.  You hear things associating low sentencing numbers with intentional crimes as if it happened between an unequal sides just because a killing was not "premeditated". It is as if those societies had decided to discriminate against themselves giving whoever to be in the aggressor place the privilege. Yet, this nonsensical behaviour is passed on everyday like it is a normal thing.

The only explanation I can see for such deviation from normal behaviour is the establishment of group identity I mentioned above. I previously likened this in my thoughts to the exaggeration of acting as if the whole country is one family. But couple of days ago I noticed how the analogy of a person injuring himself provide a closer path to the issue of identity here. 

Even just from the logical point of view and aside from the question of justice, those in the Western World are severely deluding themselves if they think that all their achievement in science is even close to eclipse  such nonsensical behaiour. 

+156 (second amendment interpretation 114)

It seems like much of my recent posts were about a solved problem because those in the court have preceded me to seeing the final point here and it was something that shouldn't have been missed. I wonder if it is seeing reasoning as the purpose for the part before the second comma through differentiation between connecting to text and connecting to action in it. If so then I personally need more work to see it clearly. Or it could be neither this nor anything that was close to my thoughts. I also need to see more clearly my own talk in recent posts for why the container thing to which I keep referring and the other thing I mentioned about putting existence over what they said in the part before the second comma. 

+155 (second amendment interpretation 113)

In support of what was said in post +151, notice how having, not just the text itself that is before the second comma, but also a container representing existence in which that text was said, is an integral part to stating that part of the Amendment as the reason for the part of the Amendment after that comma. That is because the text there only mention the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the reason even though the reason, pointed at accurately, is the State where a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. But that reference to the State as a container was not supplied in the text. 
If we were not supposed to take the text said in the part before the second comma through a container representing existence originating that text, then that part of the Amendment would have needed to also point out that the militia belong to where it was described as "necessary". For starter, one may think of :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of its free State,...
Or 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State where it belongs,...    
It seems that the Amendment was taken as carrying this meaning even though it is not stated directly in the text. Why would the Amendment stop in its clarification on this point even though it went as far as saying, not just "necessary" or "necessary to a free State" or "necessary to the security", but all the way to "necessary to the security of a free State"? Actually, the more it is argued that no attention was paid while making the Amendment to the gap of having this left out, the more that will also suggest more depth for dependence on the existence originating that text.  

+154 (second amendment interpretation 112)

I want to replace speaking about the "separating words" I mentioned in the preceding post with saying:

The form mentioned there for the Second Amendment would have, contrary to what we have now, a meaning for putting what they say over (control-wise) existence. That is because the use of "because" there could suggest eliminating the separate existence for the part before the second comma by dissolving it in the mixture with the part after that comma through explaining it as the reason for that part.

Calling the use of a comma in such position for merely separate words is probably better reserved for when the words directly around it could construct a different meaning. Related to this, I wonder if, linguistically, "state" would have been open to connect with "the right" on the other side of that comma as a verb here if it were not capitalized.  

I also want to point out here that putting existence at the root permits us to deal with what was said like anything else we hear with regard to separating witnessing from mental opinions and beliefs. It is through this middle layer then one proceeds to take the part before the second comma as reasoning.    

+153 (second amendment interpretation 111)

It is not a rare occurrence for me to get confused in what I myself was saying earlier. The correction in the preceding post was not needed and this may have been already noticed. The part of the Amendment before the second comma is entirely reasoning even for the snapshot taken with "being" and regardless of the intention behind the second comma. That is simply because, as mentioned in post +151, they put existence over what they said in that part. Had they instead used, for example, the "because" form  (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), mentioned in the opinion of the court as being equivalent to the Amendment, then that would have put what they said over existence. That is because the second comma would have been at least very open to be understood as for merely separating words not existences and that would have made just stating not reasoning the content of the part before the second comma at least a probable meaning (Although, as mentioned in earlier posts, because of "because", even if existence was seen to be put over what is being said there that would be connecting it to expressing the reason not the reason itself).

One may also notice how much the order of the two parts around the second comma was needed for this. Had they put the reverse of this order then it would have been possible to argue for the content of the part currently before the second comma as being stated not reasoned. (While it is not necessary here, it is interesting how this fits the history of the legislative development of the Amendment. Except for the first version, this order was kept to the end. Also luck, may have added more clarification here because had the two parts of the Amendment been at this order from the beginning then it could be argued that it was left like this unnoticed. But changing that order shows intentional effort suggesting attention. Although, is it entirely out of the question for people like those that it was not luck but they intentionally done that?)           

+152 (second amendment interpretation 110)

Correcting the preceding post, it is actually the connection to that container plus a dependency meaning  for the second comma, are what bring the whole process of generating the meaning of that text in the part before that comma from the root and not just the connection to that container.   
Even if we assume that dependency was not intended for us to reason the connection between the two parts around the second comma it still would not affect that we are required to reason the necessity of the militia to a free State for our time. That is because this requirement comes from the part before the second comma by itself at least from after the snapshot provided with "being" whose continuity is dependent on the existence and does not come from the authority of the constitution.
Having an attachment only by the interface without dependency,  the second comma would be just telling us that the two parts around it come together and "shall" would have only its mere future reference.

+151 (second amendment interpretation 109)

What does the Amendment give us in its part before the second comma? It gives us "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"? Good answer but probably far from being sufficient for people behaving abnormally as it is here with this Amendment. The part before the second comma gives us a container, delimited by that comma, representing the existence in which the quoted text above was said. Therefore what the Amendment give us in its part before the second comma is not just the quoted text above but also the saying of it. By "saying" I don't just mean pronouncing or writing the words of that text. What I mean by that word is the process of generating that text extending from the root of that existence. This is what was meant with words like "active form" and "process" describing the contents of the two parts around the second comma, in the preceding two posts.     

+150 (second amendment interpretation 108)

What has been  just mentioned in the preceding post does not conflict with asking "So what purpose could the attachment of the two parts around the second comma carry other than to present us with a necessity we can understand?" in post +140. What is in the preceding post does not mean that we should not try to find what meaning would result from combining the two parts around the second comma. Instead, it just says that we have no right to cancel their existence as processes while doing that. With regard to implying what was mentioned in the quote above as the only purpose, the second comma here is like the staple that holds two pages in an article together. Looking inside at the content one may ignore the role of that staple in holding those two pages together while preserving their integrity.

+149 (second amendment interpretation 107)

Here is a better view to the Amendment. Starting out, why do we need to focus on the role of the second comma beyond that of bringing the two parts around it together without being part of either of them? Why don't we instead focus on those two parts themselves and realize their complete independence from each other in their existence in the Amendment? By containing no reference to each other, including through things like "because" or "therefore" or "for that reason" etc.,  each one of those two parts protects its active form existence in the Amendment and does not allow becoming dissolved in the resulted mixture. This active existence imply starting from the root of its creation when applying that part. With regard to the part before the second comma this requires going back to find the militia being necessary to the security of a free State at application time. Of course, only when those two parts exist together the part after the second comma would be applicable. 

+148 (second amendment interpretation 106)

Although, like it was said earlier, we are far from needing this measure to argue against the claim of mere clarification for the part of the Amendment between the first two commas, here is another thing, not focusing on "shall" this time, showing how something was taken for its actionable meaning in the constitution despite not calling for that directly. 
It is in the Sixth Amendment. The direct meaning for having (actually they used the word "enjoy") the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" merely says that the accused can make himself informed. But it was taken to require the government to give that information to the accused (at least if he requests it).
It is not just that this kind of direction can happen. It also seems hard to find in the constitution that a risk was taken with actionable meaning potential without intending that meaning. It could be argued against this with how the right to have "the Assistance of Counsel" was not seen to always require the government to appoint a Counsel for the accused. This can be answered by pointing out that applying taking the actionable meaning for the accused having the right to be informed does not begin with recognizing that the government should be the informing entity. Instead it begins from recognizing that the accused should become informed if he wants by any valid way. But since that information is only available to the government it becomes obligated to provide that information if requested. On the other hand many persons can provide Counsels for themselves. 
Notice how approaching the word "right" from the side of having (or being affected by) it had led to understanding that to require enabling having those rights (for example a Counsel to those who cannot afford it). On the other hand having the Second Amendment approaching the word "right" from the side of not taking or infringing on it, does not seem to have led to any interpretation requiring the government to buy Arms to those who want to have Arms but cannot afford them. The latter thing can also be said about the Forth Amendment. It was not understood to require the government to enable people to secure themselves from unreasonable searches. 
Unlike how the other two Amendments focused on what should (or should not) go toward a right, the Sixth Amendment focused on what should come from a right and that connects to the existence of that right. It is not hard to see why that could make the difference above. Focusing on the existence of something in a constitution can be seen as extension to the constitution having creation as its root purpose, and therefore, also imply creation.  
So why should things be different with the Second Amendment and focusing on connecting the two parts around the second comma should not be seen as calling for the creation of that connecting action? Taking "being" in the part between the first two commas as equivalent to "always" would not allow this connecting action because the connection is already created.
Discussing things at this level here feels like using the shadows of things to argue for the existence of the sun.  

+147 (second amendment interpretation 105)

Actually the example related to the Amendment itself in the preceding post is also actionable but not at a direct level like the one generally understood. If we take "shall" there to be about prediction, the purpose of the Amendment could be seen to be about making people see if they agree that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" shall be protected without involvement of the law. 

+146 (second amendment interpretation 104)

Let me add this to post +143. 

Why do we take "shall" in "shall not be infringed" as intended for execution instead of predicting the future? Why cant the whole Amendment be for clarification? Another example that came from a little looking at the constitution is in this "shall" here:

"The Congress shall have Power To..." 

Why cant this be just telling us what will happen instead of what should we make happen in dividing the authority between government branches?

Isn't it that we take "shall" this way because it is in a constitution and has actionable meaning? Then why cant the same thing be applied on the reason in the part before the second comma because of its direct connection with the part after that comma, especially with the additional advantage we have here against that competing clarification meaning of not taking a shorter path to it using words like "because" or "therefore"? 

+145

In thinking I am much more like the slow moving heavy weight lifter than like a good maneuvering ninja or karate guy (tying a shoe is still a challenge to me) and it was far from me to expect learning about such deficiency of mine where the strength of my thinking is supposed to be, in comparison with the focus of those who wrote this Second Amendment and despite how much more time I have.    

+144 (second amendment interpretation 103)

Although what was written at the beginning of post +141 still stands in itself, while I was writing it I myself felt as if I skipped over a closer thing in pointing that as the reason for not including reasoning words like "because" or "therefore" if the purpose was to reason the connection between the parts around the second comma. Now I see that what they said is the closer thing to that purpose to begin with and that those people were more focused and careful in writing a constitution than to confuse connecting with the reason with connecting with the stating of that reason.    

+143 (second amendment interpretation 102)

It is both disappointing and exiting after spending time trying to understand something to find an error close to the thing enough to suggest not taking in that thing itself despite that you thought you did, and in case of a statement you find that you did not really listen to or read it despite that it appeared very obvious that you did. While there is no insufficiency of answers to the argument that the part of the Amendment before the second comma was for clarification only and was not intended to affect execution of the part after that comma, missing this one is a special indication for being contained instead of containing things from the outside . This additional simple answer goes like this:

If the intention was a mere clarification without affecting the execution then why did they connect the part after the second comma with the actual situation itself that was described in the part before that comma instead of at least adding support to such intention by connecting the part after the second comma to stating the reason described in the part before that comma using some of the reasoning words like "because" or "therefore"? In other words, why would they choose to connect the part after the second comma to the reason itself instead of connecting it to stating that reason? So why would I need to assume the addition of another layer that was already in front of the speakers there but they did not take it?
In addition to the issue of taking without proof "being" as "always" to support a theory that the connection of the part after the second comma is with the one before the first comma and that the in between part is just interrupting, such theory should not be allowed to build itself on ignoring that the part after the second comma connect to the part between the first and second commas not through stating it as the reason but directly as the reason. Instead that theory should be required to counter or offset the argument that the connection just mentioned should be taken as it appears. After all, perception of intention should be directed by the content, not the other way around.  

+142

In the preceding post, in case mentioning my missing the capitalization of the word "state" in quoting the Amendment suggests that I criticized the court opinion also for quoting the Amendment incorrectly, that is not my intention. I criticized the opinion of the court for taking "free State" as equivalent to "free State" without even suggesting any theory to explain the capitalization there.    

+141 (second amendment interpretation 101)

Had the Amendment contained words to directly point out reasoning as the purpose, like, for example "because", as in: 

A well regulated militia, because of  its being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people...

instead of this mere association of the part after the second comma with the situation described in the part before it then that would have added support to a different meaning. Taking the word "because" itself as part of the association between those two parts could suggest that the part after the second comma of the Amendment is associated not directly with the situation itself described in "being necessary to the security of a free State" but with its being the reason. That in turn could be understood to refer to just the snapshot taken with "being", without necessarily the continuity of the described situation, as the reason for the part after the second comma. 

As mentioned previously, a similar thing seems to have been done from the receiving end by speaking about a right to keep and bear Arms instead of directly about those actions themselves in the part after the second comma in order to make the association with continuity of the necessity in the part before that comma and not just with reaching the situation described with the "being" snapshot. Also as mentioned previously, the first comma adds support to that by taking the focus away from the militia itself suggesting its not being the purpose. The militia itself being the purpose is one of the most reasonable reasons that could make the part before the first comma understood as being about just reaching that necessity situation.   
I also sometimes find myself in need of bringing my focus back to that the part before the second comma points out the situation and does not create it and therefore it fits the view that "of the people" suggests an old right.
It took me this long of wondering about why the Amendment does not speak directly about reasoning until I realized the first part above. As if I need to add to my shock of seeing things like ignoring "being" or the direct jump in the opinion of the court to take "free State" as "free state" ignoring the capitalization there, with people of such caliber writing a constitution (I used to write the Amendment without that capitalization because I did not notice it).

+140 (second amendment interpretation 100)

When we want to apply the Second Amendment on our time and look at the word "necessary", how should we take its meaning?   How much saying that something is "necessary" is open to be far removed from the current status more than in saying, for example, that something is "big" or Jim is a "doctor"? How much are you open, if you hear somebody says, for example, that a spare tire is "necessary" to a car of his, to include the meaning that, for example, he is truthfully using such expression while knowing that that car will not be used until decades from now?

But the Amendment did not stop there.  It said "being necessary" instead of just "necessary". How often have you seen "being necessary" used to express an untouchable reality at a level that fits an explanation for the necessity of the militia for the security of a free state in our time? What about taking the risk of making such expression in a constitution for something that could be far fetched at this level?  

Moreover, the necessity here was not expressed for itself like the example above. Instead the necessity here was expressed as the reason for the following part ("the right of the people..").  Since, by default, "being" refers to a snapshot status and not a continuous one (because that is its direct meaning), that means the beginning part does not talk about a fact that is always true. So what purpose could the attachment of the two parts around the second comma carry other than to present us with a necessity we can understand? You have to find a real necessity not a real perception of a necessity that existed back then for our time. We are responsible about the reality of necessity not the perception of the makers of the Amendment (Not that I saw a wrong perception from those people. I am just talking about theorizing). The necessity expressed in the first part of the Amendment should continuity in order for the application of the Arms clause to continue. 

It is interesting to see that taking the purpose of the first part of the Amendment as merely explanatory would require that "being" was used as "always". But even if we allow ourselves to jump without proof to take "being" to be intended to imply "always" then that would even more directly lead to a touchable necessity. That is because the way with which "being" can express such meaning, if any, is an indirect one by making the listener infer that meaning from its (the listener's) knowledge that the status to which "being" refers is an unchanging one at least according to what the speaker believes. For example, one could try to make the listener infers that crossing the R river would always take time by saying : The R river being wide, its crossing takes time through dependence on the knowledge of the listener that the width of a river does not change.    

While some parts here could apply to both, my focus was on the level of direct meaning of "necessary" which is beyond taking "necessary" at the "container" reference meaning level talked about previously.     

+139

I hope that enough attention is given to that the similarity of my positions toward two different issues here is not being seen as taking those two issues as one. There isn't a bit of direct contradiction in, for example, agreeing that the Second Amendment does not guarantee gun ownership right in our time, on one hand, while believing in granting that legislatively, on the other. Except with the 14th Amendment incorporating issue which I felt does not leave enough room for that, I generally try carefully to separate my talk about the two.

+138: ARE YOU REALLY PRO SECOND AMENDMENT?

I just want to know if those who call themselves "pro Second Amendment", and the like, would still be pro Second Amendment if they get convinced that it does not give a right to firearms ownership in our time? Or is that being used just as a fancy and more appealing way to say that they are pro gun ownership? This term is so hijacked that I honestly feel it more probable that I can use the word "jihad" for other than how it is generally taken here than I can say that "I am pro Second Amendment" and have that taken to include the meaning mentioned above.