+66 (second amendment interpretation 44)

Back to proving that dependency from the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. Can anyone answer to the self what gives it the right to understand "being" there as being intended for continuity instead of what its direct meaning shows in being about a status? Seeing the dependency here is not far from realizing that direct meaning. Because if "necessary to the security of a free state" was merely about the fact that the people of a free state are the most trusted to defend that state and did not include dependency on the militia to take that role, then it is an always true fact and does not need to be pointed out as a status.

+65 (second amendment interpretation 43)

The actions of one individual are by default assumed to be built on a reasonable ground or a reasonable explanation needs to be provided for suggesting otherwise. That is for one individual. So how about if a number of those people at that time shared fear of the effect of government disarming the people on the militia's capability to resist the government or external enemy whether because of direct weakening through the disarmament or through the court's theory of its leading to elimination of the militia? Where is the reasonableness in seeing that dependency on the militia was built on a capability of the militia like that of our time relative to the machinery of this or an average military if it invades this country? 

+64 (second amendment interpretation 42)

continuing from the preceding post:

Or look at this in the opinion:

"During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule .."

Whether that fear comes from the direct effect of disarmament or the court's theory of its leading to eliminate the militia, in both cases it implies dependency on that the militia can resist the government.

Or this

"John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress's "command of the militia" could be used to create a "select militia," or to have "no militia at all," but also, as a separate concern, that "[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508-509 (M. Jensen ed.1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people"

That also imply dependency on that the militia can resist. (Again, the dependency I keep talking about is within the meaning of post +61).

+63 (second amendment interpretation 41)

I just noticed that I do not need to be restricted in proving the existence of that dependency on the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part but instead can take the whole amendment for that with the explanation of empowerment being the purpose behind the amendment. On the other hand the court's theory of preserving the militia built on recognizing the history of the effect of disarming the public by rulers on preserving the militia. So one could simply ask: How did that effect on the militia become noticeable other than by the absence of showing resistance to those rulers? This imply dependence on that a militia should be capable of doing that.       

+62

When the judges of the final court become convinced, dealing with this issue shouldn't be postponed for any reason. It is a very low bar or may not be even a bar for judges in an issue like this to hear even from a person whom they do not like or inclined differently about the position of that person in other matters. This separation is what should be expected from a judge on any issue let alone something like this. In addition, if that is not enough with me, things could still be balanced with negative signs elsewhere given that waiver of my rights I have given. 

Dealing with this issue is already the king of all too little too late situations despite its incomparable significance.

+61 (second amendment interpretation 40)

continuing from the preceding post

In case there is a confusion, let me emphasize that the dependency to which I am referring is a dependency on the existence of the fact that the militia can satisfy what the "necessary to the security of a free state" calls for and not necessary on being served by that satisfaction. In other words, even if you assume that there was the protection of a sufficiently powerful official army to a free state and nobody felt any need for a militia, my dependency reference would remain applicable because it is about the dependency on the fact not the service.       

+60 (second amendment interpretation 39)

Continuing from the preceding post

In addition to how that dependency very easily suggests itself because of the environment of that time, we also have the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. What could be better than having the people of a free state defend themselves? So then why that part was stated with "being" emphasizing status instead of a form that imply continuity (like "is necessary to the..")? Then it must be that the capability to fulfill what "necessary to the security of a free state" calls for was taken into account. That imply dependency on that capability because this part was stated as the reason for the arms clause.    

+59 (second amendment interpretation 38)

Somebody could say:

You keep pointing out how the difference in power between official and public forces was mainly about being organized and having a chain of commands. Doesn't that add to the preserving of the militia being a purpose?

The answer to this question is that closeness in power at that time also adds to the empowerment argument by as much as it opens the door to make things equal not just close. However, I am not going to counter it with this and other things but instead use it to adjust my position for even more probability of being correct and to remove possible confusion of different implications behind preserving the militia being a purpose. I do that by expanding my position from empowerment which imply having sufficient power being the purpose, to, dependency on having sufficient power. Preserving the militia being a purpose would lead to the arms clause of the amendment being applicable on our time only if the purpose for preserving the militia lacked enough dependence on having sufficient/comparable power to fit our time.      

+58 (second amendment interpretation 37)

Continuing from the preceding post
I need first to bring attention to something I have been describing incorrectly or at least potentially misleadingly for a long time and have just noticed. While most, if not all of my related arguments still fit because they were made in contrast with the purpose of the amendment being empowerment, it was a mistake, at least without proper caution,  to take preserving the militia being a purpose behind the amendment as equal to the mere existence of the militia itself being a purpose. 

Having said that lets continue:  
Moreover before considering how probable preserving the militia being a purpose, shouldn't it be first convincingly explained how that can be served through the action required by the amendment? The explanation provided by the court leaves one speechless because of how far it is from even the neighborhood of satisfying that.

Also lets not forget, the points here are in addition to what follows from the arms clause being always applicable if preserving the militia being a purpose leads to that.

+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?