+100 (second amendment interpretation 73)

Despite that I myself responded otherwise in the hypothetical discussion of post +97, it is actually not an uncommon use of "being" to refer to the reaching of a status without necessarily the continued existence in it. But the word "right" here can clarify the intention to be about the continued necessity.  

Also, the more reasonable way to understand the part before "the right", as being about reaching the status of necessity of the militia and not necessarily the continuous having of that necessity, seems to come from understanding that part as being about the militia itself not the situation in general. This could fit with the use, talked about earlier, of the comma after "A well regulated militia", in order not to make "being necessary to the security of a free State" about the militia itself, in showing one specific reason why.

+99 (second amendment interpretation 72)

Although the preceding part in the Amendment can fit "of the people" as expressing the quality of being already existing for the right, it is important not to miss taking into account using that phrase to identify to whom the right belong given that the militia was the focus of the preceding part.    

+98 (second amendment interpretation 71)

In the preceding post it seems better to express the existence in the Amendment of that right, mentioned using the word "right", as being attached to the status of the necessity of the militia. Because we are not sure that right can survive the severance of that attachment, that right did not establish an existence that needs to be proved discontinued when the status of the necessity of the militia is no longer here.  
Also, it probably would have been better or safer to precede that point with the one about how the status of the necessity of the militia could have been itself what caused that right to exist, instead of making it follow.

+97 (second amendment interpretation 70)

Notice that in addition to this big difference in having explanations and seeing how parts of the whole picture fit and complete each other, in comparison with the other side, after proving that in our time the part saying that a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state is no longer true, the burden of proof is on the other side. One may start by saying to the other side:

You cannot ignore "being". 

The other side could respond saying:

Even though I cannot satisfy the burden of proving that "being" was intended beyond its direct status meaning, still the burden of proof that the Arms clause was not intended to always apply, falls on you. Who knows? Maybe they meant to say that because a well regulated militia was necessary at that time, the right to keep and bear Arms should continue forever.

To that one may respond saying:

Aside from the lack of a reasonable connection between the two parts, for that you still should carry the burden of proving that there is still that right to keep and bear arms the Amendment mentioned at the beginning of the Arms clause. That is because the Arms clause of the Amendment said that the right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed. It did not say that the keeping and bearing of Arms should not be infringed. You cannot say that I should carry the burden of proving that right to keep and bear Arms no longer exist. That is because the existence in the Amendment of that right to keep and bear Arms was in combination with the existence of the status of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In other words, that right existed in the Amendment with that status as one whole. Since that right to keep and bear Arms also might have been itself created by the status of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and is dependent on the continuity of that status for its existence, the existence of that right by itself was not established, to begin with, for you to say that I still should prove the discontinuity of that existence when a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is no longer true.         

+96 (second amendment interpretation 69)

Continuing from the preceding post

Or one could say because they started speaking about the conditional status, using "being", and not about an always true fact, they kept on that focus and used the word "right" to provide conditional connection. No matter how one expresses that, the use of the word "right" fits very strongly with the conditionality of "being". 

+95 (second amendment interpretation 68)

Why did they choose to express the keeping and bearing of Arms part using the word "right"? Why not, among other possible expressions, for example, say "the keeping and bearing of Arms.."? Although emphasizing the keeping and bearing of Arms as a right may look like a sufficient answer, there seems to be a more compelling answer. The word "right" here provides a continuity connection between the "the right of the people.." part and the preceding part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary.."). Had they said something that goes directly to the intended actions (keeping and bearing of Arms), like the example I mentioned above, the door would have not been as shut to an interpretation suggesting that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part intended to apply forever even if the preceding part, with the word "being", has stopped. But when they put the word "right" to link the part before it with the part after it then the continuity of allowing the capability to keep and bear Arms will depend on the keeping and bearing of Arms being a right which in turn depends on the continuity of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.           

+94

Although I mentioned just that case in post +92, I just found that even in the District of Columbia v. Heller case residents were allowed to keep shotguns if they are bound by trigger locks. Is applying a trigger lock really a problem? Why shotguns are treated like a version of NERF here? This is supposed to be a tough firearm law? A tough firearms law would punish for holding a picture of a shotgun.    

+93 (second amendment interpretation 67)

Although it was far from leading me to ignore the clear-cut meaning of the preceding part, that "the right of the people" kept pinching me for its possible effect on other people. Now that I paid attention to how recognizing that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," leads to a right to keep and bear Arms, also imply the existence of that right before the point of that recognition whenever "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was the status, there is no trouble in seeing "the right of the people" as originating from the same root and the Amendment appears in better harmony.

But it is not just about interpreting the Amendment as a whole. I started to care more about what using the expression "the right of the people" imply, because of the 14th Amendment incorporating issue. Now there is no reason to see that expression originating from seeing a right to keep and bear Arms for reasons other than "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".           

+92

I just want to know what is going on with this stun gun prohibition in some states. Are those people serious? You have real gun ownership and selling allowed and you go after stun guns? Actually even if we assume firearms are not allowed in your state, one may still wonder about the wisdom of forbidding a nonlethal device like this.    

People here may be accustomed to it but it may not occur to people in other places hearing a discussion about a case like McDonald v. City of Chicago that the lawsuit was filed for the ownership of handgun despite that there was no prohibition on shotguns there. So with gun culture like this you go after stun guns?       

+91 (second amendment interpretation 66)

It seems that I messed up so I deleted the post as long as it is within 24 hours of posting and I am replacing it with this one. I got confused trying to answer a hypothetical argument about the expression "the right of the people" suggesting inclination for other reasons to restrict government power on keeping and bearing of Arms. Of course if "the right of the people" was intended to be ""the right of the people"" then that argument got nothing. But that is not necessary because otherwise post +90 below, at least with the change added here, gave a sufficient answer for that argument. My mistake was that when I saw how much "the right of the people" could be seen to refer to something already established I thought that post would not fit because I took when "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" was stated to lead to the right of keeping and bearing Arms, as when that right started to exist. 

I need to correct or make things better in post +90 by replacing "the preceding part" (referring to the part of the Amendment before "the right of the people") with "the condition expressed in the preceding part".    

+90 (second amendment interpretation 65)

I just noticed that because of the generality on people expressed using the "right of the people" expression, one may mistakenly extend that to generality on conditions and fail to see that the preceding part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") could have been itself what made the keeping and bearing of Arms a right to begin with and not just prohibited its infringement.  

+89 (second amendment interpretation 64)

continuing from the preceding post

Moreover, that width isolation for a purpose (selecting "security of a free state" from among others) to have a right to keep and bear Arms was also accompanied by depth isolation for that purpose through the mentioning of a militia.

I questioned, in POST +81, why the Amendment was not stated as:

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As much as you may not agree with the executory isolation of the purpose through applying "well regulated" on a militia, talked about in that post, because you take "well regulated" in a less sophisticated way, as much as the mentioning of a militia would be less needed and shows more serving as isolation in expression between the ultimate purpose ("the security of a free state") and the people's right to keep and bear Arms. If the makers of the Amendment were even moderately enthusiastic for other reasons as restrictions on government power (like for example "self-defense right") why did they point out the intermediacy of the militia stage in achieving the purpose of the security of a free state instead of letting it be expressed directly from the status of people having a right to keep and bear Arms? It doesn't take thinking effort to see that people protect the security of their state using their right to keep and bear Arms by fighting together in a militia.

+88 (second amendment interpretation 63)

If one argues that, instead of preceding execution with the purpose expressing emphasizing exclusion over execution as suggested by the preceding post, that precedence expresses total sufficiency of the purpose to lead to the execution part, then that still may not affect the main argument in that post. That is because with this view instead of controlling the right to keep and bear Arms, we start with total focus on the purpose of having a well regulated militia to begin with. So how could that express any caring about having the right to keep and bear Arms for other purposes?    

By the way, designating an "execution" part here refers to the end part for its execution, when applicable, the Amendment was made. It clearly should not be taken to imply stating that the "purpose" part has no execution.  

+87 (second amendment interpretation 62)

I am usually very capable of viewing things from the opposing side. However, I still cannot bring myself to imagine the Second Amendment reflecting, not even just neutral, but the contrary to seeing it reflecting wide consensus that there is a right to have arms in which the government should not interfere. It is very hard to imagine such alleged intention being expressed that way. Even if one can bring from here and there views from that time suggesting the existence of such impression or conception, it is not hard to see the Amendment as reacting to such conception instead of being emanating from it. I could have supported this view with mere assignment of purpose for the arms keeping and bearing right. But the Amendment provided more than that. Take a look at the whole amendment. The fact that it gave right to arms while a militia is necessary to the security of a free state should not eclipse seeing controlling the right to arms within which that came expressed. That control on the right to arms was expressed by assigning a purpose ( "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and giving it precedence over execution ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed").

I feel strongly that the gun culture here is contrary to the inclination shown by the Amendment and guns were made into a golden calf for this nation.

+86

continuing from the preceding post:

In the past if a state does not have an army, which was at that time the same thing or very close to having a military, constructing one was mainly about combining people. But what about now? The states themselves are dependents on the federal government in their security and freedom protection. However, they keep blindly applying those outdated Second Amendment equivalents in their constitutions on their citizens for that already dependent outcome. 

+85

Actually, you may eliminate much of the reason for Second Amendment equivalents in state constitutions from the start easily.

Protecting against the state government turning into a dictatorship or abusing fundamental rights is a very outdated need. Now there are federal rights to people that would call for the involvement of the federal government if citizens from that state complain to the federal courts of such behaviour. Also, back then the federal government did not have much difference in power from that of state government to impose such rights when needed. Now there is no comparison and nobody needs the help of people's ownership of firearms there.

+84

The Second Amendment discussion here can be taken as a sample for all similar things in state constitutions. People need to open their minds to the change in environment and how those things had different risk to security balance in those old times. People need to follow intelligently not blindly. Intelligent following concentrate on the purpose and not necessarily the means like someone driving his car into a river trying to follow a boat to the same destination. 

Even arms for self-defense as a purpose, in addition to changes affecting it directly between then and now, it might have acquired significance as a building block  to the capability of a group to defend itself using conventional arms back then much far from what military machinery would allow in our current time. It could be, even with the risk-benefit balance of back then, less about acquiring the armed capability of a self defense right regardless of how applicable that right is, than it seems.   

This is not against people following their own laws but it is against people doing that like a person in a hypnotic state unable to perceive his surroundings.

+83 (second amendment interpretation 61)

I was thinking yesterday about how POST +76 may not be correct when I realized that I do not need to worry about that here because I do not need to argue for the validity of the ratification. I am arguing against taking "arms" in the ratified version instead of "Arms" in the Congress version. Doing that does not fit Article 5 about Amendment creation in the constitution because Congress did not suggest the larger set (arms).  

+82 (second amendment interpretation 60)

This maybe already reached from POST 78 but it is not a bad idea to point it out.

The right to self-defense is not the same as the right to have the capability of the right to self-defense. The proof for that is that for any empowerment intended for self-defense you can imagine some level at which it would be called crazy behaviour because there is no need for the taken precaution. Since there is an external factor involved, it must be excluded before, for example, denying somebody buying a gun can be called denying to his self-defense right.

+81 (second amendment interpretation 59)

continuing from the preceding post

Had the Second Amendment been:
Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I still would have said:
Why they did not say being necessary to the security of the person and free state, or being necessary to the defense of the person and free state, or being necessary to the security, or just being necessary or simply give no reason. Should we understand the security of a free state here to include the security of the person? How much does it fit the purpose of explaining a reason choosing such a narrow top down approach? They did not speak in general or start from the root purpose for everything, the person.

But the preventing of restricting or infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms was not even connected to the security of a free state as a purpose directly but instead through the middle layer that of "[a] well regulated militia". That fits answering fears like ours of misusing the power of arms ownership by intercepting the purpose stated in the amendment by a well regulated entity.
As much as there is organizing and following of a command chain in a group, as less as there is probability for chaos in using the arms they have. So it is not hard to unite the above potential purpose with that of seeking the competitive power the organizing and following a command chain like an official force brings to the militia I spoke about in earlier posts.

+80 (second amendment interpretation 58)

Still about the incorporating issue

We have this elephant standing in the middle. We have the Second Amendment talks about "being necessary to the security of a free state" as the reason for having a "well regulated" militia and that, in turn, as the reason to prevent infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Having the right to keep and bear arms for self defense according to that does not change the reason given for the right to keep and bear arms to being for self defense. 

So even if the court has shown keeping and bearing arms being "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" in general, how much does the way the Second Amendment was written show specifically that it is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition to restrict exclusively for the security of a free state the restrictions on keeping and bearing arms? 

Also all the reference by the court to the preceding history in recognizing a right to keep and bear arms for self defense, seem like an added benefit here in case an objection gets raised based on the history following the making of the Second Amendment.      

+79 (second amendment interpretation 57)

Still about the incorporating issue

It seems that contrary to what I said in post +77 of this subsears, the court in McDonald v. City of Chicago was not arguing for gun ownership directly from a self-defense right stand but from that of a right to keep and bear arms that fits the test it mentioned of being "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," for due process incorporation. But the right to keep and bear arms is not like an instinct we know it remains the same. So while the court wanted to apply the above quote on keeping and bearing arms in our time, it supported its argument with keeping and bearing arms with a very different set of advantages because of being from very different environment back then. How much there is a difference between then and now in the dependence of the average person on himself for protection? How about the value of keeping and bearing arms to self defense for its potential collective rule in pushing away and defending the self from internal or external governments or the difference in the capability of the government to defend and repel against even a group of  people back then and now?   

+78 (second amendment interpretation 56)

Continuing from the preceding post

Third, I have just started into what courts call substantive due process. It seems to be about applying the protection offered to the "person" in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment by expanding the view to what a person is and arguing for the actions in question as being an extension to the existence of that person. But regardless of how many precaution layers people may seek their self defense right for, self defense right is not just about satisfying the capability for self defense. And although nobody is denying the self defense right, the connection of that to gun ownership is dependent on the external environment and does not directly extends from the self. So how could substantive due process apply here?
The external versus internal connection about which I am speaking here is at the level of the beginning urge. Unlike, for example food to hunger or birth control to sex, using a gun for self defense is by definition can only be called for externally. 

+77 (second amendment interpretation 55)

Some speak about self defense as a purpose for gun ownership as a reason making other parts of the constitution applicable. To this I want first to say that you need to prove not only real but also unique dependency on that ownership. This is not like saying the government can suppress a newspaper because you can express your opinion on TV. There expressing an opinion in newspaper is still an expression of opinion even with the existence of other alternative. Here, on the other hand, the creation of the defense part in the self defense claim needs the absence of other solutions. It is not enough that a gun enables a person to eliminate a danger for its ownership to be supported by self defence claim.

The second thing is that you also have self defense claim for the people under the legislation in question. You have individual self defense claim against group self defense claim. It is not like anybody would legislate against gun ownership just because they look ugly.    

+76 (second amendment interpretation 54)

"Arms" in the congress version seems to make it easier than "arms" in the ratified version to know that we are not talking about weapons like a tank or a fighter jet, because it points at specific objects. Luckily, it seems that "Arms" is what we need to deal with because Amendments are created, according to the constitution, by the process of both being suggested by congress and ratified by the states. So, whether the ratified version was intended to identify the congress version or as a different version, "Arms" is what we get through either being the shared word or referring to a shared subset of "arms".    

+75 (second amendment interpretation 53)

Regarding my "being" part in the argument of post +71, instead of arguing using the externality part of "being", I could have used its direct meaning of locality in time. That is because it is even more meaningless to tell us just that a reason exist if it does not always exist.

  

+74 (second amendment interpretation 52)

Do others really miss the sense of compromising that comes from reading the amendment?

Also regarding the preceding post, and in comparison with other amendments, one shouldn't miss taking into account that those amendments were all part of one creation comprising the bill of rights.

Now I want to correct or adjust somethings.

First, instead of saying that by using "being" they did not point at the militia itself, I want to replace that with saying that they pointed at the militia at a specific locality of time. The conclusion drawn from that in contrast with pointing at the militia at all times, in other words without time restriction, remains the same.

The second thing I want to deal with is my use of the word "externality". What follows from pointing at the necessity of the militia at a specific locality or point of time is that it suggests relationship of that necessity to external factors and therefore pointing at that locality imply pointing at that externality or the availability of that necessity feature for detection from outside and that suggests clarity. 

I don't think I am the only one who have seen "being" used to point out the clarity of a fact.

Although even without it we maybe standing close enough to the thing we are trying to look at, it seems that here we were able to pinpoint externality as being expressed through the locality of time and thereby solve the issue I mentioned in post 72.  

     

+73 (second amendment interpretation 51)

I don't know where does the stand that they were so okay with guaranteeing the right to firearm ownership come from and how can it maintain itself in front of things pointing so clearly to the contrary? Why no other right needed a supporting reason like this one? Neither things as important as free speech nor things that seems as unessential to a constitution as preventing quartering soldiers in houses were accompanied by any supporting reasoning or explanation. So where does the firearm ownership right fall along that line?    

However, assuming they were that okay with firearm ownership being above legislation at that time is actually better for my argument. That is because it suggests more focus on later times like ours as the reason behind the hardly avoidable sense of balancing things which the reading of the amendment brings. From the beginning I was impressed with how the amendment shows what suggests an attempt at balancing risk with benefit and how that in turn suggests anticipating the increased risk of firearms that came later, and have not seen yet seen what justifies ignoring that. 

   

+72 (second amendment interpretation 50)

I was thinking whether the use of "being" was intended to point out the externality of the fact and the focus on slicing that time period follow passively and how that could fit if my other posts seems to put suggesting the later in the forefront. But earlier than this I was already thinking how mistaking what is the base for what could be more a positive sign instead of negative because of its suggestion that there is a real structure you are trying to disassemble and present in parts. Thinking about how the "being" here is the equivalent to somebody explaining to another that this is his situation made me see that I could be trying to get too close and overdo the disassembling here. When a person explains to another "this is my situation" should he be taken to refer to the externality of the situation or the effect of current time? Or is it that the two come together as one whole?

+71 (second amendment interpretation 49)

I take "necessary to the security of a free state" to be intended for us to understand the reason and not just to tell us a reason exist associated with it. For the later thing, in addition to answering how could that fit a constitution, it also needs one to take the stand that the framers did not see that could be taken that other way or saw it and did not care about using things like "being" to point at the status of the existence of the militia, suggesting that understanding the reason is something ready to be grasped from outside, or even limit their explanation to suggest the existence of unseen reason. As an explanation not intended for us to understand the reason, how much of a difference does it make to tell us that there is a reason related to those things from just telling us that a reason exists? Is that difference reasonably worth the risk of having that part taken to be intended to make the reason understandable? Why not just "necessary" instead of that whole part above?

Oh, forget to remind of this. If we are not supposed to understand the reason beyond that it exists and associated with the "security of a free state", does not that lead to the reason being always applicable? If so, then why would you put that in front of the part you always want to be executed? How many times has anyone seen people talk that way? Also here they did not care about the possibility of being understood that other way? 

What part of the constitution suggests that group and not just one person shared choosing to act that recklessly and/or in that way far from natural behaviour?