+42 (second amendment interpretation 23)

The first comma was never to me but in support of my understanding of the purpose of the amendment let alone sufficient by itself to support a contrary view. But for those asking why the first comma, here is an amazingly simple and comprehensive answer others might already reached while I don't know how it escaped me until now.

Why the first comma, you ask?

The strongest answer to that is:

Because they wanted to talk about "A well- regulated militia" not about "A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". 

This answer include the answer I previously gave and shown through this example:

If the head of a company tells the supervisors of its divisions:

Employees, being needed, they should be given salary raise.

it is certainly different from saying:

Employees being needed, they should be given salary raise.

The first statement is about employees in general while removing the first comma from the second made it carry the meaning of specifying only needed employees. 

   

+41 (second amendment interpretation 22)

The effort to put the clarity to the level of saying "being necessary to the security of a free state" instead of just saying "being necessary" or even "being necessary to a free state" makes it even further away that they used "being" instead of "is" not caring enough about the difference or were more interested in the beauty of their expression. Doesn't this

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

look more beautiful and professional than this

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 

?

+40 (second amendment interpretation 21)

How about this form for the second amendment?

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Or this?

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State and therefor the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If they intended those right to be always given and the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part was intended for merely explaining why those rights should always be given then how on earth could one see those forms were not closer to mind than the way they wrote the amendment? It is hard to imagine that for one person speaking on the spot let alone a group of people preparing what they are saying and for making none other than a constitution.

+39 (second amendment interpretation 20)

Looking at all the people here treating "being" as if it was "is" makes you wonder if you just fell from another planet to here. Anyway, it seems that expressing why it is so is not that hard. The reason there is by default a guaranteed continuity with "is" but not with "being" is because "is" speaks about the thing and a thing is always itself. "being" on the other hand, describe the status out and what is out is not guaranteed to stay the same. 

+38

It is not OK for even one day to unnecessarily pass with the right of people to decide for themselves fire arms ownership is taken unjustly from them. Why this issue should be treated like it is the last thing in the universe? The top court needs to wake up and smell this situation being probably a century past due for correction. How long its warming up here should take? It may not need to be alone on this. They could use the mind of the public on specific points wanted to be answered or focused. Any judge there could publish on the web saying I got about a hundred other cases to think about resolving and about 10000 others to select from in a year so I cannot afford anywhere near the amount of time any other person can choosing to concentrate on one issue and if anybody wants to do that on this issue here are the points where I want more concentration or answers. Courts in the past had no such communication option. How much of the huge communication capability of the internet we have is being utilized here?         

+37 (second amendment interpretation 19)

The opinion of the court suggests the theory that the amendment could be about the mere existence of the militia. But they did not drive the operative part from the militia. Instead they drove the operative part from the role of the militia. If they wanted the mere existence of the militia they could have driven things directly from the militia ("necessary" instead of "necessary to the security"). 

But they did not leave it at that.They then connected that role, using "being", to the status of the existence of the militia not the militia itself and left the militia squeezed in the middle. They took away the guaranteed automaticity then they took away the guaranteed continuity. So how could one after that see the militia as being itself the purpose not the medium?   

+36 (second amendment interpretation 18)

Answering the argument that the operative clause could be more than what satisfies the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state, in empowerment, comes through two dimensions. The first is the obvious one involving going into what they meant by "necessary". The second dimension is more direct because it involves our own understanding to what necessary means. Because if there is reasoning in that part of the amendment, why should we stop short of including the definition of necessary in it?

+35 (second amendment interpretation 17)

It doesn't come easily seeing a person not taking account that part could be modifying or controlling the operative part feel inclined to go to such details. But lets assume they did that to highlight the importance of that reason in order to make sure that they did all they can do to make the operative part gets implemented as it deserves. But then, how would that fit with taking the risk of inserting the whole none executory part in a constitution, especially something like this part and in a concise and direct to the point constitution like this? Did it occur to them that people may need such enlightenment but still escaped them the risk of how much could that part be taken as modifying or controlling the operative part affecting its execution?    

+34 (second amendment interpretation 16)

The point in post 32 would still stand even if the added details explain some unclear purpose. But here what emphasizes even more the executory purpose behind that part instead of just being an explanation for an unchanging state, is that the additional detail provided ("to the security of a free state") as a purpose is hardly a hidden thing. Even if we suppose speaking about "a free state" to point out the need to protect freedom as being unclear enough to worth such an enlightenment effort, that part between the first two commas could still have been made as "being necessary to a free state". Why the need to pinpoint the purpose like this unless one wants to carefully direct an execution related to that part?

            

+33 (second amendment interpretation 15)

It is hard not to imagine somebody writing this constitution to comeback and say looking at the situation of this amendment: So this is the part that stopped you in what we wrote? The part we explained our intention and purpose almost or totally like no where else in the constitution?

Very much magnifying that is how they stopped and froze at a part that is dependent on changes in technology and science, the one part where change was light years away from being comparable to changes in any other part in human life. 

Notice that even the risk or the consequences of the court being on the wrong position are not equal on both sides. If the current position of the court is wrong then with that it closes any opportunity for legislators of any "free state" to make the correct decision for itself. On the other hand, clearly, legislators of any "free state" can give rights equivalent to those in the amendment even if the court take the position that it is no longer applicable.  

+32 (second amendment interpretation 14)

In addition to the use of "being" to point out the externality of a fact and how that fits with the simple understanding for the purpose of the operative clause as being for better empowerment, we find another thing showing the intention of leaving the applicability of the operative clause to be dependent on the facts outside. That other sign presents itself in the level of details in saying "being necessary to the security of a free state" instead of just "being necessary". Wouldn't saying just that later version be sufficient if there were no intention to leave that for measuring and applying on the changing facts?

By the way, my calling for part of the amendment as the operative clause has to do with it being the end result when applicable. But if we want to call the part that is always executed of the amendment with that name then things would be reversed.