+243 (second amendment interpretation 187: Question for the believers in the state right theory )

Although I do not do, or at least do much less relative to others, trying to contain the thinking of the makers of the constitution instead of trying to carefully follow what they said, I still wonder if the writer of this Article had also considered the counter way things fit. The original constitution looks more focused on creating the system while the Amendments look more focused on protecting the individual in that system. In addition to how their being Amendments and not continuation of the original suggests seeking a different purpose, the time  between the making of those two things adds more strength to that suggestion.

Anyway, reading there, it occurred to me that while I am trying to make the best argument I can for the capitalization of the word "state", why don't the believers in the state right theory at least start with explaining all those not capitalized "state" words in the development history, unlike the way that word was used to refer to the local states throughout the constitution before that point if that was the purpose? Actually, I could not find any other version in the development history with the word " state" capitalized except the last one which we have, and,  like I pointed out previously, I followed the link in the wiki Second Amendment article for the only other version written there with the word "state" capitalized and found it not capitalized in the source. And if it is to be argued back that the first comma made it hard to decide how to refer to the local states, I would ask about what made that comma that necessary to compete with the main purpose here, to begin with?  
Nevertheless, having myself lately slip in thinking again with regard to this distinction, I emphasis again that what concerns me is the direct implementation purpose for the part before the second comma. Otherwise, I don't see the state right theory as more unfit as a motive for the part after the second comma than, for example, self defense as a motive.   
         

+243

I thought I had the thoughts for post 236 ready, long before I published them, thinking I can do that whenever I want, until I wanted to do that and got surprised how much more development they needed. Yet, the frequency of posting thereafter below without going back to collect myself, suggests that I did not really accept that lesson.     

+242 (second amendment interpretation 186: General environment Testing vs. Deeper Purposes )

I have found that even my own judgment for how far fetched or not what I say here sounds is affected by not sufficiently  incorporating the distinction above into my view and therefore I want to point it out again even though I did a version of this in post 236. The part before the second comma shouldn't be taken as necessarily the purpose for which the part after that comma was intended to serve. It could be just to test the availability of that kind of environment in order to take advantage of it for deeper purposes including those not part of that test itself. Generally, my arguing here is related to how that general environment test should be applied and has nothing to do with the deeper purposes for the part after the second comma when applicable. For example, despite my arguing here that protecting internal freedom is not the measure used for the security to which the Amendment refers, that does not stand against a theory that internal freedom is the purpose behind the part after the second comma. The same can be said about self defense and many other suggested purposes.

This big picture may itself appears far fetched at first. The kind of environment at that time strongly fits purposes like those mentioned above but that should not be the only thing taken into account here. Instead one needs to also ask himself why would they want to control future unfit environments in order to have that for their fit environment at that time? It is an environment that had been in that fit since the beginning of human existence on earth and remained so for close to a century or more after the making of this Amendment. 

  

+241 (second amendment interpretation 185: Precedence of "security" and "freedom" )

Both arguments for the words "security" and "free" to be applied at the external level only, which I made below, are dependents on taking the capitalization of the word "state" for the granularity level of those earlier words. For the purpose of arguing the latter, in addition to collecting points and increasing the probability, there seems to be also a direct path. That path is based simply on the precedence of the words "security" and "free". Within stating the purpose, we were directed toward the State after reaching the statuses of being secure and free. The corresponding part of the Amendment could have been written in a way making us reach the State first if the purpose includes internal freedom and security, Like:

being necessary to a State to have the security and freedom.  
Maybe I confused things by jumping directly to how things should be taken (granularity level). Technically what I am trying to prove here is that the word "free" in "a free State" describes a State not a state. In other words, to the extent the the word "free" here describes the state, that description comes through describing the State, not the other way around. This the standard of proof to which I am holding myself here.       

+240 (second amendment interpretation 184: On Development History )

I wasn't planning on starting a talk about the development history of the Amendment like this, but I wrote some of this part in the preceding post then preferred to make things more organized.

Having that development history of the Amendment, it maybe of special importance here to point out how it seems natural to see that protecting internal freedom and security extends to protecting the external freedom and security but not vice versa. Therefore, the word "state" could have been used without capitalization in those earlier versions of the Amendment also for having external freedom and security as the main test in that general applicability part, but with taking the whole package as the path for that external freedom and security. 

In addition, I once before suggested that that development history or part of it could have been intentionally made like this to help the future people. While that may have sounded as far fetched probability at the time, I now imagine having that potential objection that the makers of the Amendment just wrote the word "state" capitalized like it was written everywhere else in the constitution before making this Amendment without paying attention to the consequence of combining that with the first comma, if it were not for those not capitalized "state" words in the earlier versions.    

+239 (second amendment interpretation 183: Alternative Argument for "free" and "security" )

Instead of the argument made in post 236 and the one below, for why the words "free" and "security" should be taken in relation to the world not internally, one could simply say this:

The relationship between two words in a description status could be that of a two way path. For example, the word moving in moving car and moving boat is not only describing the words car and boat but also getting itself described back differently. Moving in a car imply being on land while moving in a boat imply being on water. In other words, a different aspect of the word moving was selected depending on what it describes. Similarly, here, both "free" and "security" can be about internal or external freedom and security. Capitalizing the word "state" suggests selecting the external aspect of those two words.

+238 (second amendment interpretation 182: About "security" in Post 236)

This could be already noticed, but there is probably no need for the special argument I made for the word "security" to apply within the same environment like the word "free", because the capitalization of the word "state" affects the former the same way it affects the latter. Taking the same examples given there but replacing president with, for example, new president, and writer with, for example, column writer, do not seem to change a thing because of affecting multiple things in each example. (However, while being here I noticed, with regard to the original point of invoking the related environment by what something is called with, that when saying he is a young writer, the word young would more probably be taken as being young age wise not young in the world of writing. But that seems to be the result of an internal local choice blocking the containing one (the word "writer"). That is because of how common is the use of other choices, like the word "novice", to express being young in relation to a field. In any case, I intend to think of more examples and elaborate on that if needed.)  

+237

Related to the preceding post, unless something changes, I still have until August 13 or around that of amicus curiae filing time for case 18-280 but I wanted to put that core first. Although it may lead to same time calculation either way with relation to the respondent's position, my position here is focused merely on interpreting the general applicability part of the Second Amendment. 

+236 (second amendment interpretation 181: That Missed Direct Path)

I want to start here with saying that this is being posted within the time allowed by the rules of the Supreme Court to file an amicus curie brief for case 18-280.

I do not know how the judges of that court decide many other issues if the overwhelming signs here are still not enough to make them do that on this issue. In any case, when I sensed a demand for more argument despite taking the case above, this time I focused more on going directly to specifically what should be done when applying the amendment instead of arguing the aim. It turned out that in addition to the overwhelming number of signs and the big picture here, there is a path that tells what should be done at a much higher specific level. All that is needed for this path is included in the part between the first and second commas, with special dependence on the words "the" and "State". 

The Word "State"

Unless things were preset for a different direction, capitalizing any word implies recognizing it externally according to the meaning of that word. Therefore "free State" refers to the state that is free at that level of granularity in existence. This combination takes the meaning of "security" to be protecting being free at that level.

This applies to states like this country or France or India and even those with internal dictatorships as long as they are free in their external existence. But it is not applicable to internal states like the states in this union individually, even if considered as States in the world because they are not free externally. The constitution itself stated that these states here cannot enter into agreement on their own with a foreign State. Of course, we are talking here about the domain of a general applicability test for the Amendment which has nothing to do with the application domain of its part after the second comma if this test gets passed.

No special treatment being given here. There is so much dependency on taking things this way everywhere that it is very hard to imagine the world running without it. For example if somebody says this president is not carrying out his responsibility correctly why should that be taken as a reference to his official duties, not, for example, his duty to his family? Or if I say he is a good writer about a person, the listener would understand it to mean that the person to whom I referred is good at writing something, even if both the listener and I know that person is much better at something else, like for example being an athlete? The word "writer" does not refer to the action of writing but to the person doing that action and it is the same person being both an athlete and a writer so why referring to him as good writer should be taken as if I said he is good at writing or he writes good? 

The reason behind all that is that at least when what we call something with is clearly a matter of choice that choice also invokes its environment for the intended meaning. Here we clearly have the word "state" chosen to be capitalized. This brought its environment to direct the meaning of the word "free" preceding it. This combination, in turn, brought the environment to direct the meaning of the word "security" because, again, a choice was made to refer to only free States instead of any State. 

But shouldn't being in a construction mode of something give priority to the local meaning and therefore "State" here should be taken as a reference to the States in the union? Despite that the answer to the former is an affirmative one the latter does not follow here and that could be where the first comma shines the most for its effect. That first comma causes temporally escaping the building mode to the outside and that takes the word "State" back to its general meaning instead of the one it acquired because of speaking locally. 

The Word "the"

The Amendment refers to "the security of a free State" not just ''security of a free State". The definition provided by the word "the" for the word "security", preceded in effect the description provided by "a free State" for that same word. Therefore that description applies to "the security" not just "security". This implies that taking the definition provided by the word "the" for the security to which the Amendment refers as only possible for distinguishing a type of things and not also a specific selection within that type itself, is wrong.

Just simply adding a comma immediately after the word "the" would have reversed the precedence in effect described above allowing "the security" to apply on any security related to "a free State" and the definition provided by the word "the" would then serves as selecting from only the different kind of things related to "a free State". But even if there were no such alternative, arguing against that precedence in effect on the ground that it is the result of the position of the words, needs to explain why should we see that the form of expression was given priority over the intended meaning when constructing the Amendment.

Also, since there is no comma preceding the word "the", the security to which the Amendment refers is for the one applicable to the whole world at the State level, not to the environment of any State in the world separately.

And because of having the part of the Amendment before the second comma exists separately and not in a dissolved way as in saying

Because a well regulated Militia being/Is necessary to the security of a free State, the right....

it cannot be argued that the reference to security there, is only for the security at that time.