The Real Patriotism

Real patriotism shows itself not with the raising of flags but with someone throughout decades and decades ago looking at the consequences or potential consequences of this mess and says we need to get rid of this. To me letting the country I live in be in this mess is as repugnant as accepting to live with the content of the septic tank inside my home. 

One may think that people could fail to manage things properly and choose the right path only with matters that apply differently on them. But how could an obviously necessary path where the justice and the need are in a unity like this be ignored like this? The question of life and death is like that of winning or losing lottery for something that is entirely man made and superimposed in this country but still they seem to have no problem with that neither for themselves nor for their moral principles.         

Especially cruel crimes

Last week I saw on TV someone who killed his mother smashing her head by hitting it repeatedly with a sledgehammer. I think that even if the principle of an eye for an eye is not applied generally, making a federal law that mandates its application when a crime reaches such level of cruelty is an idea that needs consideration.  

"cruel and unusual" 7

An analogy to that is when someone says that he has a long list to do using the word "long" instead of the word "big" to project serializing or sequencing for the purpose of emphasizing himself being a single executor even if most of those tasks can be overlapped and carried out concurrently except that the amendment  projects serializing or sequencing in order to suggest the status of being new for those processes.   

"cruel and unusual" 6

Using "cut processes" in the last part of the post below the previous was unnecessary and probably wrong. Instead one could have expressed that part stating:

Using a single process to represent the whole suggests an intention to separate the processes and that here seems to serve a purpose if it was a separation in time. That suggests creation more than application because it suggests, through the sequencing, the status of being new .    

"cruel and unusual" 5

Even if the part about punishments in the eighth amendment had came in a separate amendment of its own, that would still have not made me any close to understand it to mean forcing the overriding of clear rules of justice like those mandated by the an eye for an eye principle.

I think that if the framers had such intention, they would have put more effort to state that in order to counteract the deeply rooted  sense of obligation to justice inside human beings. On the other hand as much as deeply rooted that sense of obligation to justice is, as much as it could make it hard to imagine such understanding is probable or even possible on correct grounds.  

To me it is hard to imagine it being further away from telling the government you cannot execute a killer. Instead, I see it telling the government you cannot, for example, execute someone who had failed to pay his taxes. But for the blood of another human being, how does it even occur to some here that it is imposing such a restriction on justice?

But I never really liked all the talk I see here about "love" while skipping over the question of justice.That could be behind a confusing here in seeing an intention to override justice in what is not only lacked such intention but was probably in itself intended to secure avoiding injustice and take it as being the ultimate objective in itself.  

 

"cruel and unusual" 4

First, one may notice how making a penalty imply dealing with new matter which imply facing the matter and thinking about it for the first time and that fits with how the amendment stated things in the sequence of  "bail", "fines"  then "punishments". Then one may also notice how unlike the later two words, "bail" was in the singular form. Combining the two notes above and considering the fact that there is one bail for an accused person regardless of the number of fines or punishments in question, the view per completed process rather than individual persons as a group with cut processes would seem more evident and that support the claim that the amendment is about the making of rules and not applying them (in the sense pointed out in the post below).   

"cruel and unusual" 3

So, as much as, for example, a book about the making of cars can still talk about or refer to driving them as a consequence to the ways of manufacturing them and despite that the ultimate purpose being driving them may still be described as being just about the making of cars not driving them, it appears that the eighth amendment was about the making of penalties not applying them. Therefore it does not apply on what is directly mandated by the eye for an eye principle because that comes naturally and doesn't need to be made.      

"cruel and unusual" 2

Whether people deviated from the eye for an eye principle or not, the fact remains it comes naurally from the most basic level of sensing justice inside a human being. With that in mind, one may also express the last point in the post below saying that combining and preceeding the "cruel and unusual punishment" with two things requiring a making process ("bail" and "fines") suggests strongly that it was not meant to apply on what is mandated by the eye for an eye principle because it comes naturally and requires no making.

That of course is in addition to how the use of the word "punishment" here may by itself suggest something that involve a creation process. That is because of how much that word can be used to refer to the creation of a reaction to the crime. For example googling "punishment vs. penalty" brought the Phrase " death penalty and capital punishment".

Moreover, those who oppose the death penalty on the "cruel and unusual" ground are not only opposing the equality in the process of making the injury between the dead victim and the criminal as mandated by the eye for an eye principle but also the end result of that process   

"cruel and unusual"

In case the mess of guns was not enough by itself it was combined with the mess of punishment. Starting from the constitution, the death penalty in general was not only debated but was decided for a while to be a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Are you kidding me? If you want to abolish the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent person then that  is a different question. But to think that the "cruel and unusual" phrase in the constitution was intended to apply on the death penalty for a killer makes guys holding such a view here sound as if they came from a different galaxy. Not only for the question of  executing a killer but I don't think that phrase was intended to apply on the eye for an eye type of punishment in general. Unlike what some seem to take that phrase, the purpose behind it could have been to establish a line not to be crossed for punishment to actions were the just punishment is not clear rather than to replace justice. Notice how that understanding  is supported by grouping that phrase with actions related to fines and bails each of which has no clear direct just measure.

     

Yesterday I read something from a gun guy speaking about how killing someone who breaks into your home at night could leave you troubled morally for the rest of your life. I personally could kill a number of those who break into my home by choice and still not be troubled morally anywhere near as much as I would be for just being part of an acceptance by the society for the killing of one person without a choice given to him or her like that school or the movie theater shooting as part of normal life. I don't see how it is possible to tolerate in any amount the absence of a choice to that level.

Another thing I saw recently that seems like a denial to the consequences of the gun situation we live in, is the level of regulation imposed by at least one state on , believe it or not, stun guns. This also reminds me of how those firearms commercials seem to generally advertise "gun and knife" not "guns" alone as if they are in anyway comparable.      

A little clarification 3

Even without that, any contradiction between purchasing a firearm during our current time and any future laws against the spreading and empowering the capability to kill by them is limited to how the type of purchased weapon and the intended use for which it was purchased can fit any future restrictions by such laws. For example, the basic shotgun can be required to be much heavier than what it is and be the size of a washing machine and it can still be sufficient for the home defense purpose for which it was purchased. It can also be required to be made inoperable outside a very limited range of fixed location physical or wireless connection and it can still be sufficient for that purpose.  

A little clarification 2

Although I am not responsible for reckless or careless understanding to my position, here is what I said in the past and it shows how what I wrote in the post below is not something new to my position.

A little clarification

I mentioned this when I was posting in a discussion board. My general position regarding firearms ownership is about the system not the individual. It generally has nothing to do with the individual choosing to have or not have a firearm as long as the law still allows that. 

In addition, for my second amendment interpretation argument, which I have been concentrating on for sometime, I could even be the most believer in having laws allowing such ownership but still believe that the second amendment does not impose that. 

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.