+145

In thinking I am much more like the slow moving heavy weight lifter than like a good maneuvering ninja or karate guy (tying a shoe is still a challenge to me) and it was far from me to expect learning about such deficiency of mine where the strength of my thinking is supposed to be, in comparison with the focus of those who wrote this Second Amendment and despite how much more time I have.    

+144 (second amendment interpretation 103)

Although what was written at the beginning of post +141 still stands in itself, while I was writing it I myself felt as if I skipped over a closer thing in pointing that as the reason for not including reasoning words like "because" or "therefore" if the purpose was to reason the connection between the parts around the second comma. Now I see that what they said is the closer thing to that purpose to begin with and that those people were more focused and careful in writing a constitution than to confuse connecting with the reason with connecting with the stating of that reason.    

+143 (second amendment interpretation 102)

It is both disappointing and exiting after spending time trying to understand something to find an error close to the thing enough to suggest not taking in that thing itself despite that you thought you did, and in case of a statement you find that you did not really listen to or read it despite that it appeared very obvious that you did. While there is no insufficiency of answers to the argument that the part of the Amendment before the second comma was for clarification only and was not intended to affect execution of the part after that comma, missing this one is a special indication for being contained instead of containing things from the outside . This additional simple answer goes like this:

If the intention was a mere clarification without affecting the execution then why did they connect the part after the second comma with the actual situation itself that was described in the part before that comma instead of at least adding support to such intention by connecting the part after the second comma to stating the reason described in the part before that comma using some of the reasoning words like "because" or "therefore"? In other words, why would they choose to connect the part after the second comma to the reason itself instead of connecting it to stating that reason? So why would I need to assume the addition of another layer that was already in front of the speakers there but they did not take it?
In addition to the issue of taking without proof "being" as "always" to support a theory that the connection of the part after the second comma is with the one before the first comma and that the in between part is just interrupting, such theory should not be allowed to build itself on ignoring that the part after the second comma connect to the part between the first and second commas not through stating it as the reason but directly as the reason. Instead that theory should be required to counter or offset the argument that the connection just mentioned should be taken as it appears. After all, perception of intention should be directed by the content, not the other way around.  

+142

In the preceding post, in case mentioning my missing the capitalization of the word "state" in quoting the Amendment suggests that I criticized the court opinion also for quoting the Amendment incorrectly, that is not my intention. I criticized the opinion of the court for taking "free State" as equivalent to "free State" without even suggesting any theory to explain the capitalization there.    

+141 (second amendment interpretation 101)

Had the Amendment contained words to directly point out reasoning as the purpose, like, for example "because", as in: 

A well regulated militia, because of  its being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people...

instead of this mere association of the part after the second comma with the situation described in the part before it then that would have added support to a different meaning. Taking the word "because" itself as part of the association between those two parts could suggest that the part after the second comma of the Amendment is associated not directly with the situation itself described in "being necessary to the security of a free State" but with its being the reason. That in turn could be understood to refer to just the snapshot taken with "being", without necessarily the continuity of the described situation, as the reason for the part after the second comma. 

As mentioned previously, a similar thing seems to have been done from the receiving end by speaking about a right to keep and bear Arms instead of directly about those actions themselves in the part after the second comma in order to make the association with continuity of the necessity in the part before that comma and not just with reaching the situation described with the "being" snapshot. Also as mentioned previously, the first comma adds support to that by taking the focus away from the militia itself suggesting its not being the purpose. The militia itself being the purpose is one of the most reasonable reasons that could make the part before the first comma understood as being about just reaching that necessity situation.   
I also sometimes find myself in need of bringing my focus back to that the part before the second comma points out the situation and does not create it and therefore it fits the view that "of the people" suggests an old right.
It took me this long of wondering about why the Amendment does not speak directly about reasoning until I realized the first part above. As if I need to add to my shock of seeing things like ignoring "being" or the direct jump in the opinion of the court to take "free State" as "free state" ignoring the capitalization there, with people of such caliber writing a constitution (I used to write the Amendment without that capitalization because I did not notice it).

+140 (second amendment interpretation 100)

When we want to apply the Second Amendment on our time and look at the word "necessary", how should we take its meaning?   How much saying that something is "necessary" is open to be far removed from the current status more than in saying, for example, that something is "big" or Jim is a "doctor"? How much are you open, if you hear somebody says, for example, that a spare tire is "necessary" to a car of his, to include the meaning that, for example, he is truthfully using such expression while knowing that that car will not be used until decades from now?

But the Amendment did not stop there.  It said "being necessary" instead of just "necessary". How often have you seen "being necessary" used to express an untouchable reality at a level that fits an explanation for the necessity of the militia for the security of a free state in our time? What about taking the risk of making such expression in a constitution for something that could be far fetched at this level?  

Moreover, the necessity here was not expressed for itself like the example above. Instead the necessity here was expressed as the reason for the following part ("the right of the people..").  Since, by default, "being" refers to a snapshot status and not a continuous one (because that is its direct meaning), that means the beginning part does not talk about a fact that is always true. So what purpose could the attachment of the two parts around the second comma carry other than to present us with a necessity we can understand? You have to find a real necessity not a real perception of a necessity that existed back then for our time. We are responsible about the reality of necessity not the perception of the makers of the Amendment (Not that I saw a wrong perception from those people. I am just talking about theorizing). The necessity expressed in the first part of the Amendment should continuity in order for the application of the Arms clause to continue. 

It is interesting to see that taking the purpose of the first part of the Amendment as merely explanatory would require that "being" was used as "always". But even if we allow ourselves to jump without proof to take "being" to be intended to imply "always" then that would even more directly lead to a touchable necessity. That is because the way with which "being" can express such meaning, if any, is an indirect one by making the listener infer that meaning from its (the listener's) knowledge that the status to which "being" refers is an unchanging one at least according to what the speaker believes. For example, one could try to make the listener infers that crossing the R river would always take time by saying : The R river being wide, its crossing takes time through dependence on the knowledge of the listener that the width of a river does not change.    

While some parts here could apply to both, my focus was on the level of direct meaning of "necessary" which is beyond taking "necessary" at the "container" reference meaning level talked about previously.     

+139

I hope that enough attention is given to that the similarity of my positions toward two different issues here is not being seen as taking those two issues as one. There isn't a bit of direct contradiction in, for example, agreeing that the Second Amendment does not guarantee gun ownership right in our time, on one hand, while believing in granting that legislatively, on the other. Except with the 14th Amendment incorporating issue which I felt does not leave enough room for that, I generally try carefully to separate my talk about the two.

+138: ARE YOU REALLY PRO SECOND AMENDMENT?

I just want to know if those who call themselves "pro Second Amendment", and the like, would still be pro Second Amendment if they get convinced that it does not give a right to firearms ownership in our time? Or is that being used just as a fancy and more appealing way to say that they are pro gun ownership? This term is so hijacked that I honestly feel it more probable that I can use the word "jihad" for other than how it is generally taken here than I can say that "I am pro Second Amendment" and have that taken to include the meaning mentioned above.   

+137: THE WORLD AS A JURY

I once saw two judges from the final court seem to take different sides on the issue of taking or learning things from some places elsewhere in the world. I think we need here to distinguish between two things: Taking things at the sophisticated level of thinking and taking things at the level of basic recognition and comprehension. My concern here is the latter. Contrary to how my position regarding the Second Amendment here hardly seems substantially shared, I still wish to go in a worldwide expedition testing how people naturally understand the Amendment and if that would fit my position or that of the others here. How much of the world speak English either as first or second language? And it is not like we are reading Shakespearean text here. I would not speak about who had taken what position here. I would just put the audience at that environment and time and see how the Amendment would be taken. I think that this issue here would not only be decided to my side but that the majority would be overwhelming enough to point out the distinction between normal and abnormal comprehension here.            

+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?