+136: The scary inhibition inside

I generally cook every day and for some internal psychological reason/representation it has to take me considerable time no matter what I am preparing. I gradually started to pay closer attention to my behavior and have been discovering how much of it is unexplainable. I saw astonishing things like interlacing freezing for no reason. Actually, I don't know how much of that should be expressed as seeing new things and how much of that as seeing the absence of a reason for what I already saw before. I also saw how much conscious effort and standing will it takes me to change this behaviour. Things started with just noticing myself taking much time here. Now, everyday the scary thought comes to me about the unreasonable freezing and inhibitions the judges of the final court would have also discovered about their behaviour in taking the Second Amendment had it been also something that has new occurrence every day and they are as much in contact with it like I with my daily cooking.     

+135 (second amendment interpretation 99)

If you point at some place where there are several objects and say look at that thing wouldn't your reference be taken to what has the most protruding reason to be the target? What is the most protruding reasoning with regard to the keeping and bearing of Arms in the connection the Second Amendment presented to us? Is it anything other than the comparative empowerment with the outside which Arms brings during that time? So, shouldn't that be taken as the level of fulfillment to which "necessary" refers? 

Moreover, the snapshot the use of "being" presents encourages using this approach.     

+134 (second amendment interpretation 98)

In the preceding two posts, to say that having the first comma taking the focus away from the "well regulated militia" part, leads to that the purpose is the "security of a free State" which the militia was necessary to provide and not the militia itself, is one thing, but what I sought was more ambitious than that. I wanted to strengthen my position with showing how "necessary" was applied by taking advantage of how presenting the parts around the second comma, if the connection was intended to be direct, and I am very inclined to see it that way, imply counting on seeing the obvious thing that Arms were needed to satisfy the necessity of the militia with the comparative empowerment it brings. However it seems that by making the claim that having the focus taken away with the first comma prevents stating the importance of the militia as intermediate purpose, I made a general wrong statement that can be proven as such by so many examples. One person could for example say to another That restaurant, being so big, lets eat there expecting better service there and not because of any desire to make use of its additional space.   
I need to put more thinking to make sure if there is a possibility where the Amendment has stating the importance of the militia as intermediate purpose but the main purpose is the security not the militia itself or that I am just confusing the existence of such a third possibility. 
By the way, again, seriously discussing things here shouldn't be taken to mean that there are serious questions to discuss and I cannot avoid the thought that people behaving normally here would not feel any need for this.     

+133 (second amendment interpretation 97)

continuing from the preceding post

The first comma transferred the focus from the well regulated militia itself, through the status of its existence, to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So what confusing thing the poor speakers here had done to make their intention more difficult to understand than in, for example, saying Jim, being a doctor, you should see him for your headache in that it is the headache (or the dealing with it) that is the focus not Jim himself?

I put the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in quotation marks above in order to denote speaking only at the parsing level to the sentence there and avoid the implication that right has independent existence from the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state.

+132 (second amendment interpretation 96)

What is holding the court here? Shouldn't we understand the parts before and after the second comma (by default I always talk about the congress version) in a way that makes sense of why that connection was made to us? Taking things this way very clearly fit things in my direction. But could it be that there is a view here that a purpose of expressing the importance of the militia through the purpose stated for it in the first part prevents direct connection between those two parts around the second comma? Such understanding implies that the purpose of expressing the importance of the militia is the final purpose for the part speaking about its necessity. Does the level of focus on the intended purpose throughout the whole constitution give any indication that two purposes could be pushed confusingly like this into each other for us to see that this Amendment has two final purposes like that (the importance of the militia in addition to the right to keep and bear Arms)?

Lets go to the technicality of how the Amendment was written. 

Although it starts with "A well regulated militia", following that with the first comma immediately took the focus away from it. Then in the second part the focus was placed on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and stayed there to the end. So how could one see that separate purpose in stating the purpose of the militia when the focus was taken away from the militia like that?

Yes, earlier, I, with insufficient accuracy for the discussion here, spoke about the purpose of the first comma as being to focus on all militias equating that with the purpose of not focusing on specific militia and did not take into account the passive path in expressing the resulted generality.     

+131 (second amendment interpretation 95)

It is both by default and also the stronger case that the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the creator of the right described in the Arms clause as the "right of the people". So if the latter is taken to refer to an already existing right, what is left here except to answer the question of whether we have a militia necessity that gives a right to keep and bear Arms and if the answer is no then the Arms clause of the Amendment is no longer applicable?   

+130 (second amendment interpretation 94)

Seems like I, in the preceding post, incorrectly tried to correct or improve myself for the earlier one. The precedence is important. Had the Amendment started with the Arms clause one could by default assume that the word "right" exists as part of the speaker setup for the reason not the reason itself.

+129 (second amendment interpretation 93)

I want to replace the "logical sequence" and "precedence" part of preceding post with simply saying that because the necessity of the militia clause was stated as the reason for the Arms clause, every existing thing in the latter should be taken as the creation of the former unless proven otherwise.  

+128 (second amendment interpretation 92)

Related to post +125, one could ask: Still if we take "necessary" to what fit our time, would that mean any kind of necessity would activate the Arms clause of the Amendment?

Luckily, we have the other container reference, the word "right", to help us here. The necessity of the militia part of the Amendment and the Arms clause are not separate statements. Instead, they have a logical sequence imposed by the comma separating them in which the existence of the necessity of the militia has the precedence because it is the cause for the other part. This means everything in the Arms clause from the point of its existence should be taken to have been created by the necessity clause unless proven otherwise. So in addition to how much the necessity of the militia being the generator of "the right" mentioned in the Arms clause is the better fit, we also have it as the default path. The "of the people" following the word "right", suggests telling us that right should follow from being a natural consequence to the necessity of the militia and not because we are told it should follow the necessity of the militia. In addition to this, I still don't see, even when there is a necessity for the militia, why the word "right" should be taken to necessarily imply the existence of a right, to begin with. If it is said: The season being winter, the snow should be removed, does that imply there would necessarily be snow in winter?

Having the necessity of the militia from the kind that itself leads to a right to keep and bear Arms answers the question mentioned at the beginning above. 

      

+127 (second amendment interpretation 91)

The theory of the court is more like a punchline for the Amendment if it were intended to be one of those jokes that makes you assume the more obvious or prominent thing with its setup then surprise you with a different outcome, than it is an interpretation. 

+126 (second amendment interpretation 90)

As if had the Amendment came as only The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed without any, lets use the court's word, "clarifying", for why, one could have the choice not to follow the constitution here. So why would they add a clarifying part except for additional clarification? If so then how would that fit a purpose like that suggested by the theory of the court despite how much it is eclipsed by a much more obvious one? They could have much better permitted taking things at the level of such possibility into consideration by omitting that addition instead.

Although the theory of the court was answered with the assumption of it being true, that theory is too weak to have wasted on it how much the comparative level of empowerment suggested by the Arms clause fits a non secondary role for the militia in relation to the security of a free State.

+125 (second amendment interpretation 89)

But do we even need to discuss what they meant with "necessary" and if it was intended to include secondary roles? Why cant we see things from the level pointed at where what defines "necessary" is what was included under "being", which as pointed out earlier has continuity based on the object remaining in its status and not directly from the authority of the constitution, not just the application of that definition. If someone points at a container, then as much as it is reasonably acceptable shouldn't the first priority meaning be given to that that person meant the container itself and that what linked the meaning to what happened to be in it at that moment? Here there is what maybe described as at least very competitive meaning that necessary was left for us to apply it based on our honest judgement.   

+124

I just noticed that instead of myself doing the searches I mentioned in post +121, I can create news alerts. So I replaced those nine news searches with nine news alerts after finishing one search batch which took me an hour or more.

By the way, why don't judges allow themselves to communicate as freely outside the oral argument environment as they do inside? Why, with all the communication power the internet provides, there cant be the equivalent of that in writing? Why cant a judge declare that he is writing with quarrying the other side attitude and self scrutiny level of an oral argument and proceed as such? As much as he can show timely fitting reaction to the answer here as that in the oral argument environment as much as there is less reason to obligated the self to act differently between the two environments. With modern communication means, what difference doing an argument orally has except that it puts one on the spot?     

+123 (second amendment interpretation 88)

In addition to how one may wonder about "necessary" being used for a secondary thing, one may also ask if that was the case then why pinpoint the "security" ? A militia could also make a significant difference responding to natural disasters for example?Why not instead just say "necessary" or "necessary to a free state" to strengthen the case with those significant additions? 

Also look at how the pre-final version of the Amendment said "being the security". This seems very clearly referring to a full role. And if "necessary" was added to allow for a secondary role then that could have better been expressed as "necessary for" instead of "necessary to" to strengthen that purpose by pointing at an already existing security regardless of its level. Moreover, that would not fit the essentiality  direction mentioned in post +119. If that was the purpose then why did it need to wait for the intermediate "being the security" stage instead of happening directly after the "being the best security" stage in the development of the Amendment.

While I may not be always able to bring myself to care about quotes from here and there showing how some people at that time took the Amendment, I find it very hard to ignore the development in its drafting. I think it is the most essential thing after the Amendment. Actually, saying "after" may not be accurate because the development in drafting can be seen as the root of the Amendment itself. I couldn't see the argument for the court expressing such thing as "dubious". In any case it said that in relation to its theory that the Amendment was codifying right originating from other reason(s) which is clearly was contested here.

By the way I looked for a more detailed drafting history but the link I mentioned in post +119 is the best I have found yet.        

+122 (second amendment interpretation 87)

While other people may take very seriously into account excusing authors based solely on what is minor in being unforeseen compared to this literally unbelievable change between then and now with the Second Amendment, the poor authors here actively limited their talk to their status using "being" and it still did not save them.

Make no mistake about it that this is pure denial. People are not really discussing this Amendment here. They are just playing games and deceiving themselves consciously or unconsciously. I bet on the sanity of a discussion of this among people from elsewhere under the effect of drugs much more than I bet on that in the discussion among the judges of the Supreme Court here.       

+121

Until I declare stopping or changing that, from now on, I intend to, at least once every week, do a Google news search writing "Second Amendment Justice judge's last name" on everyone of the nine judges at the final court, looking for new material from them telling us what is holding them here. 

+120 (second amendment interpretation 86)

As if it is not enough that no argument was given for why should the meaning of "being" be extended beyond its direct status reference. Look at how in the section and article mentioned in the preceding post "being" was there from beginning to end of developing the Amendment. If it was just a form of expression why no attempt was made to change it? With all the effort put to express things, as shown in the changes in expressions mentioned in the preceding post, among other things, and with attention at the level of adding a comma or changing a semicolon to a comma, why no body said: Hey guys, somebody could confuse this "being" to mean that we are referring to only our status?
What also deserves a special mentioning in this regard is why would they worry about the government using the "religiously scrupulous" part but do not worry about "being" gets used by future governments to tell people this is not about your time if "being" was intended to mean "always"?   

+119 (second amendment interpretation 85)

Take a look at the section titled "Conflict and compromise in Congress.." in THIS article about the Second Amendment. It provides a valuable drafting history for the Amendment. When I first looked at the earlier versions of the Amendment I worried about how saying "being the best security" would weaken my argument that "the right of the people" refers to the right created by the reason given at the preceding part of the Amendment. But then I recognized how much, instead, the direction of the development of the Amendment supports my side. "being the best security" was changed to "being the security" which in turn was changed to "being necessary to the security", more and more to the direction that justifies that as a reason for a right to keep and bear arms.  

+118 (second amendment interpretation 84)

Continuing from post +116 

And don't forget that all that clarification did not come within in a Because a militia is.. form. Instead it came within the being form which, because it points at the object at the current time only, provides no continuity directly from the authority of the constitution. The continuity here is dependent on our judgment that the object is still in that status and therefore requires understanding the connections in that part in order to apply it.   

+117

Even if I had recognized how much the situation here is like those in stories of human sacrifice societies and had seen the Amendment and wanted to argue for its interpretation at the time of the Heller case in 2008, there is no way I could have imagined that the court would come up with the theory suggested in its opinion in order to take into account answering it.  

It may not be the only way, but this is one of the problems the method of preliminary view for court opinions I mentioned elsewhere could solve . I generally view this method for the benefit of judges. The fact that a judge is the final decider does not need to come at the cost of being in a position with a potential of significant lacking of information. Why should it be that a litigant gets all the input of the judge but not vice versa? That question becomes even more important considering how often the judge is the layman in the field of the litigant.        

+116 (second amendment interpretation 83)

I just noticed that in trying to answer the theory in the opinion of the court I dealt with the Amendment as if it did not say "to the security". So even just directly from this, how would the theory of the court stand? If the purpose of the Amendment does not include empowerment and it was not dependent on the existence of sufficient power, how would preserving the militia leads to security? Should one assume a magical connection to that in that "clarifying" part of the Amendment? The Amendment could have said "..necessary to a free state, the right.." or even just "..necessary, the right.." and that part could lead to ambiguation more than clarification if the purpose of the Amendment was as it could be according to the theory of the court. So how about missing as direct connection as that?  

+115

Continuing from the preceding post:

I would very much prefer to give higher credit to myself for differing here instead of saying that others are acting abnormally but unfortunately there is no way I can convince myself of that. The Second Amendment is a well defined expression and shouldn't have subjected to what it was subjected here. It is to me so much so that I honestly feel much less confidence in myself that even with exhausting effort I can prevent other than what I meant taking to something I may say. This is coming from a person who once tried to correct others for suggesting a problem with applying the Second Amendment here before seeing the Amendment which he had to drag himself to do despite how easy the task is because of how much he was not expecting it would worth the effort.
   

+114

I want to point out again that despite my discussion about interpreting the Second Amendment here, I am light years away from missing how the behavior of the court regarding this matter screams loudly psychological issue.

One could have seen that easily even through strong rationalization. So how about when the court does not show any ground for its position or reason for its difficulty here?

+113

An alternative theory to some of what is in the preceding post would be that the court simply wants to keep as much as possible only the level needed for the person in applying the Second Amendment until it finishes reviewing its position on interpreting it. In order to do that it has taken one general view across all kind of Arms for a risk (to others) to benefit evaluation. Therefore it may choose to grant a stun gun or knife case but may deny a case with similar arguments for guns.

+112

Although I haven't read the opinion of this court in reversing the Massachusetts stun gun restriction, I think that the writer HERE did not get it right. The effect of the Second Amendment on this court sounds like that scene from Star Wars where somebody kicks and gasps for air because of being lifted from his neck although you cant see how the other guy is doing that to him. However, its granting or not granting related cases may have much less to do with seeing or not seeing the actions of the other courts as a "slap in the face". While this court is taking time reviewing itself on the Second Amendment it may pause from applying its established rulings leaving the stage for lower courts to step in to fill the gap and do what they think their duty calls on them to do. But this pause by this court probably comes from the morality issue of the probability of its being wrong there and not just the probability of being wrong in itself. So when it sees that the continuity of its ruling is what is more on the moral side then it may use the path of continuity in applying its already established precedent until it gets changed. The same probability of being wrong that may have caused the court not to grant other Second Amendment cases until it decides on a position, could also be the reason to grant this case to reverse what was seen as an imbalanced position toward stun guns until that decision.  

By the way, how often does it happen that minority dissenting judges would continue those same dissents later on applying the ruling they had dissented its making for this writer to be wondering about its absence here? 

+111 (second amendment interpretation 81)

Even though it was not the main thing for understanding the Amendment, not understanding why "the right of the people" was used made me wonder about how that could fit as an expression for the right being recognized. The other side on the other hand apparently found it easier to jump the assumption of self sufficiency to go and look for other reasons for the existence of that right instead of ways of expressions justifying that use. More astonishingly, they did that despite how the combination with the preceding part would lead to a meaningless statement. For me, the guidance of the preceding part of the Amendment  made me far away from even thinking that others could have depended on the use of "right of the people" as the foundation for their interpretation of the Amendment. It was relatively very recently that I recognized  this as the position of the court after being confused for so long with describing "self-defense" in the opinion off the court as "central component of the right itself", by combining that foundation with the attempt implied in this description to make meaning of that foundation combined with preceding part of the Amendment.  

Anyway, even if we take finding no answer for the use of  "the right of the people" as justifying the creation of such a strange meaning, now that we see a very valid use for that expression by paying attention to the difference of when the right was recognized from when it existed, that difficulty in creating a meaning with the other view points us to the understanding just mentioned as the answer. As an analogy, assume a person being told to use the exit to go out while he is in a room where he cant see but walls and therefore interpreted  that some of the walls might be an exit. But then after he suddenly recognized the existence of a door, would he still continue  to have the exit through the walls as a probable interpretation?   

110

The word "fabrication", in the preceding post, might have been the wrong way to express the abnormality of the opinion of the court. In any case, its use there has nothing to do with intention and merely intended to express more rootless creation in contrast with over extending something.   

109

Although I have no desire to do it for a personal reason, I am thinking of calling myself the Second Amendment guy. Why? In order to counter this wide spread tendency for the Second Amendment to be taken for granted to give a right to have firearms. People very easily and without any hesitation or thinking use "I am pro Second Amendment" in order to convey that they are pro a right for firearms.      

Even though it is a minor thing relative to the continued effect of taking lives, the injustice inflicted on the makers of the Amendment with all the accusations and the reckless way what they said has been taken, could be enough by itself to make one to try to counter that.To begin with, if it is not already there, I do not know how much closer one can get to fabrication from interpretation than the Supreme Court here.         

+108

How long has the Second Amendment been due for correction in applying it? Eighty? Ninety? More than hundred years? Still there is a huge difference between more than hundred years and more than hundred years and one day when it comes to returning the right of the people to decide for themselves a matter that could make that much difference between life and death.  

+107 (second amendment interpretation 80)

Even without seeing where the word "right" came from, if this was the excuse for not applying the Amendment correctly, it is a common thing to see such use just as a redundancy for that word without intending it to change anything. You say that maybe true in everyday talk but a constitution shouldn't be taken as if it was made in a shallow or careless way like that? Why then wasn't this same view applied on the word "being"? Taking the word "being" like how a word in a constitution should be taken eliminates, through its precedence in the Amendment, any dependency on understanding why the word "right" was chosen in the following clause, when it comes to the issue of continuity in applying the Arms clause on subsequent time. 

Or was it that "the right of the people" was taken as the starting position and the rest of the Amendment was brought to fit an absolute understanding of that phrase and a comma before "being" was seen sufficient to push it away from its meaning at the root but the entire part before that phrase was not able to suggest the dependency of that "right"? That of course is in addition to having a ratified version without comma before "being".