+57 (second amendment interpretation 36)

First we have the "well regulated" suggesting trying to make the militia as efficient as armies of that time.

Second, we have the use of "being" taking things away from expressing continuity to refer to the militia itself and instead stops at referring to its status.

Third, we have things taken away from expressing shared root coming from an always existent militia, by having "security" referred to as in its status of being a separate thing that can have its own degree of quality not necessarily as that provided by the militia.

Then, we have all that connected to the empowerment the arms clause leads to.   

It all seems to fit the purpose being effectiveness and shows nothing at the depth of the mere existence of the militia itself being a purpose behind the amendment. Unless we are reading one of those jokes that sets your mind at one meaning then surprise you with a much less expected one, does this look like how things should reasonably be expressed if the mere existence of the militia was a concern? They even could have suggested the mere existence of the militia being a purpose much better with less of the same expression by writing "necessary" instead of the whole "necessary to the security of a free state".

+56 (second amendment interpretation 35)

If the well regulated militia was seen as "necessary" because it is the only true defense to a free state regardless of how far it is from being reasonably capable of doing that, then, aside from other things, why the corresponding part in the amendment was not expressed as:

being the security of/to/for a free state

or
being the real security of/to/for a free state
or any other form showing that oneness in target 
and instead of:

"being necessary to the security of a free state" 

which treats the security issue as a separate thing that can have its own degree of quality?

+55 (second amendment interpretation 34)

continuing from the preceding post

By assuming being in the situation of a person one often becomes confident about knowing the intention of that person through the sharing of roots to the action of the later inside . Here instead of just one person, we have the probability of correctly sharing roots for something that was already successfully shared among a group. Moreover, each individual in that group was working for a task requiring staying close to the basic roots inside the self as that of adding to a constitution.     

+54 (second amendment interpretation 33)

I don't know why the second amendment should be targeted with interpretations chasing mysterious purposes as if we share no connection to make such thing with those who did. As if it is far from the minds of people trying to establish a system where people rule themselves to also think about making people also defend themselves in an environment empowering this choice like that. As if it is hard to think where there is such little difference in empowerment equipment between official forces and the public to make the larger one of those two domains in a free country its army. And the sad thing here is how the amendment itself reads as if it is actively saying there is no mysterious purpose here.  

+53 (second amendment interpretation 32)

Related to post +50 and +51 below, last night I thought about how back then, unlike now, the biggest thing that makes government force capable of overpowering that of the public is that the first is organized and follow commands. With that it immediately came to my mind the thought: Hey wait a minuet..didn't they mention what fits that and also put it first thing in the amendment ("well regulated")?  

By the way, I think it was clear that in post +51 that the first sentence was intended to be:
It was sufficient to make the argument in the post below had the the part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the amendment been followed by anything.  

+52 (second amendment interpretation 31)

Yesterday I thought about understanding statements that mix the use of "being" with generality. For example, a physics author writes water being liquid.. or a medical author writes the heart being the blood pumping organ .. or a botany specialist writes a fully grown palm tree being a big tree.. and so on of endless examples, are all those talking only about those things only as they are in their time because they are referring to their status using "being"? The answer to that is they are probably speaking about those things whenever they exist but that goes indirectly. Directly, yes, they are referring to the status of those things only during that time. Then that talks transfers to similar things in other time because they share the same status that was described with "being". The generality talk does not change "being" from status to continuous description although the end result may be concluded as continuous or always applicable if one sees the sharing of that description among all instances in different times. That is clearly not readily available or shown for the description "being necessary to the security of a free state" with all existence instances of the militia throughout time.

+51 (second amendment interpretation 30)

It was sufficient to make the argument in the post below had the the part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State amendment" been followed by anything. But instead it was followed by an empowering demand building on the basis of that argument. And again it was not just any empowering demand. It was an empowering demand that puts the militia equal in terms of keeping and bearing arms which is at that time was the main weapons in wining or losing a battle. The difference of having that one bullet primitive firearm was not ignored. How much does that speaks about the purpose being the capability to successfully protect the security of the free state by the militia?

+50 (second amendment interpretation 29)

Ask yourself can you depend on the militia to protect you from the machinery of the military of this country or even that of the average outsider military if it invades this country? If your answer is no then it means the applicability of the second amendment expired. Yes it is that simple.

Their pointing out "being necessary to the security of a free state" imply clarity in seeing the necessity of the militia and that clarity continued for a century of time or more after the amendment during which the biggest factor for a side to win a battle was the number of men it has. This is the test that fits that level of clarity.

+49 (second amendment interpretation 28)

continuing from the preceding post

What I should have said is that my understanding would fit the ratified version whether its talking about the militia was understood as conditional or general. The other understanding where the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" is taken as always necessary would not fit with the conditional understanding of the ratified version but it still can make the same fitting for the general understanding as it does with the congress version if it was not dependent on the first comma in that version to make the meaning that the militia is always necessary.

I am simply trying to guess what could be the other side's argument for why the "being" part was taken with continuity like "always" or using "is" to refer to the thing itself, because on its face "being" is about status.     

+48 (second amendment interpretation 27)

I need to rethink what I wrote in the preceding three posts and may comeback to correct that. 

+47 (second amendment interpretation 26)

The last part of the preceding post just occurred to me while I was making the post. A little bit of additional thinking on it one may argue that accepting the ratified version imply either accepting that version supersedes the other or accepting its acceptance of the other, and the end result of that becomes the amendment. In other words, either the ratified version ends up becoming the amendment or its fitting the other version becomes the amendment. In both cases it is the understanding for the part between the first two commas in the other version as being about generality not continuity that would fit the resulted amendment.     

+46 (second amendment interpretation 25)

Understanding the part between the first two commas as being about generality not continuity makes the ratified version without the first comma by itself acceptable.

Instead of looking at the absence of the first comma in the ratified version only as deficiency, we can see it as additional help in interpreting the comma version. These kind of arguments maybe seen as supported with how few or even one person understands the text or statement in question during that time. Here, we not only have the understanding suggested by all the people who approved the amendment in its comma-less version but also the approval of that understanding by the author. So why should one ignore all this and just assume acceptance of a big lacking like what the other understanding leads to. Actually, with or without that assumption, does not the action itself of accepting the ratified version constitute part of the creation of the amendment and we still receive the end result?     

+45 (second amendment interpretation 24)

In addition to how merely focusing on the "well regulated militia" as the thing intended to be spoken about can be sufficient to support my side on interpreting "being necessary to the security of a free state", notice how that also fits accepting a ratified version without the first comma. Both versions could provide the same end result except that the one with the first comma provides easier process by looking at the general environment of the time instead of on individual militias. Does understanding the "being necessary to the security of a free state" as always necessary to the security of a free state, provide close to this fit? Here the two versions seem in direct contradiction to each other, one supposedly says always while the other speaks about status.     

+44

I do not accept reserving the term "pro second amendment" to those who believe in firearm ownership right that cannot be taken away by the elected government and may choose not to recognize such use. The one who is truly pro second amendment should be also the one who interpret it correctly. 

+43

While you are taking more time on freeing people from the second amendment very past due expired obligation do not forget to keep in mind the thought of all gun victims having taken from them a right to make a choice that could have saved their lives.

+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.       

+31 (second amendment interpretation 13)

continuing from the preceding post

And even if someone wants to ignore that technicality in the meaning of being arguing that it can be used as an artistic expression to state always as a fact, how wise is it to use that in a constitution? How much there is a probability that the framers were willing to take such a risk? What other part of the constitution suggests them being that careless in the expression of their intentions? Even for just that amendment how does it fit the claim that the first part was just for clarification stating always as a fact in such a confusing way?   

+30 (second amendment interpretation 12)

The word "being" is always directly about the current status only. But based on the type of thing to which it refers, the listener may infer that it means always. Even assuming that being the purpose here, making the listener infer that, in itself, conflict with, or even contradict being used to impose a fact.      

+29 (second amendment interpretation 11)

The way the second amendment was interpreted here, especially the ignoring of how "being" opens the door that a status can change, provides a scary example of how one may interpret things based on psychological motivation or purpose far away from reality and facts. It is almost like a psychotic level of denial and/or delusion.

What psychological motivation or purpose you ask? I think it is the desire to establish identity (or what I used to call the identity complex) which worked it way this time through acting to this outrageous level as if you remain the same and do not change.

This thing I have been calling the identity complex seems as if it is an elephant in every room in this country. However, be careful that this could be a shallow diagnosis. In other words, I could be like the person who sees a man enters a place then leaves carrying a box.I could say that man wanted the box even though what he really wanted could have been what was inside that box.    

+28 (second amendment interpretation 10)

Despite what I have been writing here, don't make the mistake of thinking that the second amendment needs anything more than the simple normal understanding. How could a court see things like the segregation and prohibiting homosexuality as unconstitutional but fail at this? I don't know any non psychological reason for that.     

It is as simple as this: Assume your boss tells you (and I am borrowing this from a similar example in the Linguistic Brief):

James, being away from here, no work on the project should be done.
Or
James being away from here, no work on the project should be done (without the first comma).

A little later you see James. Would you then continue to think that no work on the project should be done? Would you think that your boss intended what he said to be taken over reality? I don't think so.

In fact your boss could have said: 

Because James is away from here... 

and you still wouldn't take that as being intended to be taken as a fact over reality.

However, the poor people who wrote the constitution even avoided this later form and you still managed to falsely accuse their intention for what could be close to a century now.