+25 (second amendment interpretation 8)

Notice that, unlike the case had they used "is" to speak about the militia itself, the side alleging continuity in the meaning of "being" is the one with the burden of proof.  

+24 (second amendment interpretation 7)

The first comma seems to show that they were talking about that time and through that imply different world could lead to different results. Another view seems to have went exactly contrary to that purpose by suggesting that the purpose is to separate the part between the first two commas as always true. But if it is the later, why did they use "being" to speak about the status of the existence of the militia in the world instead of directly about the militia itself? 

Notice that the purpose of stating that the necessity of a militia is not dependent on the type or kind of militia can fit as part of the purpose mentioned at the beginning above.

+23 (second amendment interpretation 6)

The being of a militia is part of the being of the world. So, when I look at the word "being" there, the least I think the second amendment itself gives us the right to do is to judge if the being of the world had sufficiently changed in matters related to the security of a free state. Then if the answer is yes, we can proceed to judge the question about the necessity of the militia for our time. If the answer to that question is that the militia is no longer necessary, in the sense meant in the amendment, then no longer a constitutional right to keep or bear arms exist. 

+22 (second amendment interpretation 5)

Some may already took this into account. It could be that I did not need to use "for" in the alternatives I stated in post  20 and could have written them as:

A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
or
Being necessary to the security of a free state, a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

+21 (second amendment interpretation 4)

Even assuming it is sufficiently probable that a constitutional amendment could include teaching, how often one could see two big matters (the militia and the right to bear and keep arms) crammed in one sentence like this unless there is a dependency between the two?

+20 (second amendment interpretation 3)

One may need not to miss focusing on how it is the whole "being necessary to the security of a free state" that connect to the operative part of the amendment. It is that status of being for the militia that connects directly to the operative part not the militia itself. For the later, even if we include an intention to merely teach a purpose, it could have sufficed to say: 

For a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

One also could have included all the alleged teaching in the amendment in its current form and said:

Being necessary to the security of a free state, for a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  

19

I simply find it hard to continue tolerating how this issue is being treated like it is the last thing on the whole earth in importance in this country.  

+18 (second amendment interpretation 2)

In addition to how a constitution is a document of directives not teaching, an amendment take things even further away from the purpose of teaching because it is about some required change. The writing style of the rest of the amendments also does not encourage one to see the part before the operative part as just simply there to explain the benefit of a militia. If that was the intention then writing the two parts as separate sentences would have provided much better clarity for the purpose. Where else in the constitution the intention was expressed in such a confusing way? Also, if that is the intention why use "being"? Wouldn't an arrangement like A well-regulated militia, a necessary (entity/ body/ structure..etc) to the security of a free state, the rights.... If it is part of the mere existence of a militia that it is necessary to the security of a free state why express it that way? In other words, if it is an unchanging fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state why speak about the status of the existence of the militia instead of speaking about it directly?

+17

Frankly speaking, if I were the one who made the second amendment and I come back to see that a court interpreted it by an opinion like that of the majority of the Supreme Court in district of Columbia vs. Heller, I would look for another court to sue the first one for fraud.

+16 (second amendment interpretation 1)

I once read a joke about somebody who responded to saying that bridges get built for people to walk over them by saying: No, they are built for water to pass under them. Based on the second amendment opinion of the Supreme Court in 2008, that person could be any one of the justices who had made or agreed with that opinion. First it seems to suggest an outrageously strange interpretation making the purpose of the second amendment like tagging instead of empowering by bearing arms. Actually, even tagging does not fit because tagging aims at making the world know the tagged person and is not needed to make that person know his role like how the 2008 opinion suggests arms serve the purpose of preventing dismantling the militia. The 2008 opinion seems to make it by itself a sufficient purpose behind the operative part of the second amendment what could have been replaced with giving everybody a shirt with the word "militia" written on it except that the framers chose the arms for that purpose.   

Second, if that was not enough, in order to make it fit the opinion apparently took the role of the "being necessary" part as merely a clarification for the importance of a militia in general which is the constitution, especially a concise one like this, being a document of do and don't has no business of getting into. 

On the other hand, understanding the purpose of the amendment as being empowerment by bearing arms and understanding the "being necessary" part as a role for the militia, instead of just a description, and how much that makes that part explains the purpose of the operative part all fit nicely with each other and with the constitution as a document of directives and much less about teaching.  

+15

I know it is hard to resist, but how much this looks like the ultimate king of all too little too late situations should be more of a reason for working hard on the issue instead of relaxing.

+14

This second amendment interpretation is really standing on nothing and I feel pain for losing all that time instead of continuing the argument against it. A precious time that could have been used to start changing the situation in this country. So why did I leave things that long? Because my intention when I started writing about this issue was just to relieve the moral responsibility that could come from not pointing out this bad unjust way of living. But then I found some attention so I continued. I stopped mainly to look into myself regarding how much of my intention was for God or Goodness which I failed or was too lazy to do (Although it is better to stop a bad thing for whatever intention than letting it go). It is a disgrace to me to be thought of as anywhere near seeing the situation in this country which looks like a modern way of giving human sacrifices as normal or acceptable (Although I have been trying hard to separate discussing gun ownership as a legislative law issue from that as a constitutional law which has a strong argument that the second amendment had stopped a long time ago from giving a right to gun ownership even if you believe that gun ownership is the best thing in universe).       

+13

Is there any nation on earth stands upside down like this one? They imposed thirteen years of prohibition of alcohol but never minded the existence of guns. Alcohol is prohibited like poison in Islam but I would still have said are you crazy? Get the guns.

Then what does it say later to have the desire to drink leads to changing a constitution amendment but the need and morality of not living careless about the choiceless gun victims like one of the, real or fiction, old human sacrificing societies, cannot?     

+12

One may need to pay attention not to confuse the issue of Guantanamo as that of being about the location of the prison in itself. The problem with being outside the country is that a different standard of justice is allowed there. Justice is something one need to seek at the best level he can and is not something that one can fashion to his taste. Therefore there should be one standard of justice at least from the entity making of the standard.

However, I emphasise again, that prison is much better than forcing expelling the residents to worse places. 

+11

For those who choose waterboarding I say, aside from the issue of having a standard that does not allow torture, if you waterboard somebody and it turned out that he was innocent or really does not have the information you were looking for then justice requires that you should be waterboarded even if you are the president of the United States.

+10

I want again to echo that it is neither just nor acceptable and very degrading to us to force the indefinite holding on human beings like farm animals as it is the situation in Guantanamo. I came from a dictatorship and therefore I am familiar with what would make me surprised if even ten percent of what is called secret evidence here really deserve to be secret. After all, remember how Bin Laden's videos where not supposed to be aired in their entirety because of fear he could be communicating coded messages? Actually even with conducting trials here the issue remains of, as it was with the alleged marathon bombers, how can you claim somebody being the enemy of the country and still try him inside that same country?

Nevertheless, being held there is still better than being forced to go where there is unjust and torture.

+9

Although dealing with this issue is more difficult, I also still keep remembering the question I asked before regarding the requirement of a beyond a reasonable doubt proof in alleged self defense cases. The question is if you accept that a mere  reasonable doubt would prevent incriminate the killer aren't you incriminating the killed based on a mere reasonable doubt? If, for example, you do not incriminate A for killing B based on 20 percent probability that his allegation of being attacked by B  is true aren't you at the same time incriminating B despite 80 percent probability of being innocent of what was alleged against him? 

+8

It is also for the same reason below I never understood the argument questioning trials for Guantanamo detainees in courts here because of the rights the system gives to defendants. Again, there is only one justice and you are walking a fine line. So as much as things are unjustly tilted toward the defendant side they would also affect victims in other cases here.

+7

I just want to tell those who put that "premeditation" requirement suppose that God told you through miracles proving to everyone it is God's order that you should rule on people to the best of your judgment without telling you specifically how to rule and that you will be held responsible for the level of your following to that order. I doubt then that you would still believe in no death sentence on a killer even if there were no questions about the guilt, let alone applying something like that "premeditation" requirement if you really want to follow that order. So if you cant apply that there how can you apply it here? There is only one justice. You need to walk a very fine line because justice is not something for you to add as a style for your identity. 

+6

Too bad with all the complements given in yesterday's state of the union address it was not mentioned that no nation in history was this crazy unjust by choice disregarding the issue of killing people like those in the movie theater, or even further from having any choice to avoid being killed like the children in that school, while giving someone who intentionally chooses to point his gun and shoots to death another parson only a partial punishment because the killing was not "premeditated".

Craziness was not even satisfactory here from one side. No, it gets built in layers. First they give a person a device that allows easy killing like the gun. Then they tell him don't worry even if you suddenly feel the urge to use it and kill someone you wouldn't get the punishment of a real killing.  

+5

It is not even about questioning if bad things the victim had done to the killer in the past should affect the punishment. No, the victim could have had absolutely no guilt toward the killer and still killing that victim cannot bring a punishment more than what is allowed under second degree murder designation unless it was "premeditated".Even if one had lost his sense of justice, doesn't he wonder why did its application throughout history conflict with that? After all it is not like murder is something that was recently discovered as a result of development in technology.

.   

+4

One may expect to see a discrimination based on for example religion, gender, color, but for a person to give himself less rights as a victim than as an aggressor, who can expect that? 

+3

Seriously, things like that, from the post below, in this and other countries following similar systems can hardly be seen by an external observer as being expected or anticipated any more than the actions of a totally insane person could be. That is because even if one can expect violating morality, it is still much harder to imagine somebody choosing other than the just path just for the sake of it and without any seen benefit like this.       

+2

It is far from sounding common sense justice to see that the whole life of a victim who was for example shot to death to be worth only a sentencing of 20 years (and I am probably at the high end of the scale for second degree murder sentencing here), let alone the probability of a parole release, of the shooter's life just because he did not Premeditated  the murder, as long as the shooter did his action by choice and with recognition to its potential consequence. Yesterday, I tried to see what arguments are there in support of such distinction between punishments for Premeditated and non-Premeditated intentional (in the sense described above) killing but I did not find anything worthy of special mention or encouraging for more research in that regard. I started to question how widespread this system which the normal senses seems to contradict could be. So I searched for that in the United Kingdom and guess what? It appears that according to the "English Law" they don't have second degree murder there. Instead, according to THIS they have only murder and manslaughter there and there is nothing in the law preventing killing like the one I described above from getting the same sentencing with or without Premeditation. That fits much better with basic sense of justice for actions that are seen as clearly intentional in the normal sense. The addition of premeditation doesn't need to be necessarily treated different than adding another killing charge to what already should receive the maximum sentencing.

  

+1

I was once flipping through TV channels and paused at a scene from an old western movie in which one man was close to kill another. I felt some comfort in how the reaction of another guy, supported the normal and very basic sense of justice I keep wondering why people strayed  away from. He told the first if you do it I would see that you get hanged for it, or something like that.

He did not tell him I will check and see if you premeditated the killing I will hang you for it. Look how much this feels closer to the self . So where did all those second degree murder laws come from? At least some old arguments suggesting inequality in human blood based on benefit to society and the like, while abhorrent to the senses, had on the face some logical basis for their support. Here, on the other hand, there is nothing except for favoring whoever commits the killing first. I don't understand what kind of sense of justice allows the carrying of the burden of for example somebody's becoming suddenly angry to shoot someone else to death on the victim? Who would have thought that from the old time where the less privileged needed to be seen equal in humanity one day one's need to defend that equality would extend to merely being the victim?

The Colorado movie theater shooting guy escapes the death penalty while THIS GUY  is set to be executed on 16 of this month?Are they that sure of what is he accused of or is it that those two group of people need to talk to each other? 

Before I see that here, it did not occur to me that being anti guns and for death penalty for killers could be divided into two opposing camps. Things like these always constructed one whole to me and would feel contradicted otherwise.

Also until I paid attention to that here, the only thing that was coming to my mind as the reason for having or not having a death penalty is the possibility of killing an innocent person. The point which some make regarding the sacredness of life of someone who himself took the life of another person unjustly is to me so unacceptable mentally that it cannot sit in peace even with mere comprehension of existence.   

Wasn't that a joke? Why even bother to have a death penalty if it is not applied even on a case like that in Colorado? What more was needed? 

I on the other hand was thinking if it would be just to keep medically reviving the guy while shooting him until he got shot as much as he shot those people then leave him to die at the end. 

Those who oppose the death penalty on killers are more for human life than those who do not as much as those who take into account the value of a variable only on one side of the equation are the better mathematicians.  

The Colorado movie theater shooting guy got life in prison penalty despite actively shooting all those people. The marathon bomber, on the other hand who less actively participated and killed much less people got the death penalty. Although I think that all criminal killers should be killed, I thought from the beginning that different application for discrimination and/or identity complex caused the difference in the marathon case but waited for this ruling to test that.

I just don't understand why some states that have the death penalty try to force some new chemical methods on everybody that its work cannot be seen from outside ? Are they trying to apply the eye for an eye principle? Of course not. They are most probably trying to come with a less painful way of killing. So why don't they offer that as an option? How hard is it to have classic methods of execution, like hanging, available? If the condemned person himself say he doesn't want your "better" way of execution why force it on him? 

Although I am speaking about an if situation for the death penalty, I still would want to say that, of course, is with assumption of certainty because the only thing that has a higher priority than executing a guilty killer is not executing an innocent person. But things like that movie theater shooting in Colorado, does anyone, or even the accused shooter himself have any doubt that he shot those people? If not, then letting him stay alive absent forgiveness of those who have the right to forgive in that shooting is a joke not justice.