+199 (second amendment interpretation 144:)

Counting on the reader or listener to take being as "always" but at the same time explaining the purpose to the level of pointing out "to the security", who talks like that especially if  the purpose is clarification?

On the other hand the explanation suggested in the preceding post is not far fetched from even the way people combine things to express similar intention in everyday life. If, for example, you want to avoid your relationship with Jim, a car mechanic, from being seen as that of a friendship, you could say something like I see Jim  occasionally to service my car to suggest otherwise. Here also, "occasionally" expresses limiting the relationship time wise from a higher frequency  which could be associated with a friendship, while "to service my car" helps in preventing expressing the purpose of seeing Jim from stopping at Jim and letting the door open for understanding a  depth of friendship in that relationship.    

+198 (second amendment interpretation 143: That Level of Avoidance)

By Heaven! people, cant you see that in addition to the time limitation of "being", the rest of that part did not stop at "necessary" or even limit itself to "necessary to a free State" but had to supply the whole "necessary to the security of a free State"?

The militia as not itself the purpose but a mere pass through was expressed in width, time wise using "being", and also in depth by not letting the militia appear as the end contact point in expressing that necessity.   

+197 (second amendment interpretation 142: Quick summary)

Let me give a fast summary of the correct understanding for anyone wanting to stop the outrageous self deceiving going on with the interpretation of this amendment. 

I don't switch languages when I read the amendment. I take the use of the word "being" like I take it when I hear it used in similar way everywhere else and it is that it is establishing a current status and questioning its future existence at the same time.  Reading a constitution does not imply that unless proven otherwise I should take everything on the forceful side. Reasoning precedes that and here it directs to this  understanding. Reasoning also leads us to take the way that"being" part was stated and used to imply referring to an obvious thing and I cant see better fit for that than the difference of the effect of militia size versus machinery between then and now.  
Actually, it seems that the notion of forcibility in a constitution takes its power from seeing it as an execution oriented document. However, ironically, the majority opinion of the court for the part before the second comma in seeing it merely for clarification of an always true fact seems to have abandoned executability but still held on to forcibility.

+196 (second amendment interpretation 141: An Additional Personal Dimension)

I lived my life in a conspiracy where people, because of secret demand of those closer to me to deny my existence, behaved toward me in a shallow way trying to avoid establishing real connection to my existence and because I took that world as real my existence was pushed to become extremely shallow (Believe it or not that, for example, it is only after more than decade of intentional efforts and years beyond the age of forty I was able to come to the realization that when someone has a beautiful voice the measure for that comes from the inside). 

Now on this issue here if I believe that anyone really doesn't see that what I am arguing for is the correct interpretation I feel that I am repeating that same life long mistake of losing my depth because of believing in fake existence.   

+195 (second amendment interpretation 140: Outside And Real Depth Inside Surveying)

Instead of those fabricated mass crimes, one could have served the cause much better bringing interpretation views from outside the country. The Amendment is written with simple words and simple grammars using a language that is either the first or the second language for the whole world. So what is the excuse here? Why don't we see which side with  the very abnormal understanding here?

Actually, even within our borders here how many if asked  about their own understanding and disregard those from others would agree with what are generally seen as the main views here? Even if you believe that interpretations from others have more probability for being correct lets not jump over this actual you level and support circular feeding for a pathological behaviour here in case there is one (The "in case" is written for the opposing side. Otherwise I cant see but pathological explanation here)        

+194 (second amendment interpretation 139)

I got confused in the preceding post. There is a big difference between the argument made there and the one using that first comma and it is that the former is dependent on seeing "being" intended for its lack of guaranteed permanency but the latter is not.   
This difference is not a secondary thing. I was led to the use of that first comma trying to find leads on the mere technical level that "being necessary to the security of a free State" was intended for differentiation and not just causation. Combining the intention for the lack of guaranteed permanency of "being" with the permanency of the causation,  presupposes aiming for that differentiation between the existence of that status and its absence.    

+193 (second amendment interpretation 138)

The role of the first comma pointed out in the preceding posts comes in addition to how intersecting the time limitation or the lack of permanency of "being" with the free undissolved permanent existence of the part before the second comma, by itself, also serves the same purpose.

So even at the pure technical level, it is one leading thing inside another for the conditional meaning of "being necessary to the security of a free State".  
By the way, for much of what have been written in the past, I have been mistakenly using the word " continuity" to mean permanency.     

+192 (second amendment interpretation 137)

It is now more than 24 hours since I wrote the preceding post and therefore, according to the system with which I try to restrict myself, I cannot change it. Otherwise I prefer to add  "(if at all)" to the end of "through merely being an existence"  because, as mentioned previously, the whole thing could be a pure condition without referring to actual existence of the militia being necessary to the security of a free State. The fact that the environment at that time fitted that condition does not by itself imply a reference to that actual environment.  

Although, the content of the preceding post is about the role of the first comma, I did not notice it starting thinking about that. Instead, I was trying to find how to answer why we should take "being necessary to the security of a free State" as being about contrasting that existence with its absence instead of simply being about just that existence, from within the used expression itself without external support, and was led from there to the use of that first comma.       

+191 (second amendment interpretation 136)

Let me add this to expressing the overwhelming strength of the side for which I have been arguing:

The first comma adds help to clarifying the role of "being necessary to the security of a free State" as not connecting the two parts around it through merely being an existence but also through being a condition, by pointing to not only the existence of that status but also to the absence of an opposing status, and that is done by expressing the existence of that status from within a whole or a total that also includes as other possible statuses the militia not being necessary or the unknown.

+190 (second amendment interpretation 135)

I remind again, if the burden of proof falls on my side then bring me your argument for that. Otherwise, if we start on equal footing from the beginning of the Amendment then there is no comparison between any other opposing interpretation and that of my side. The "being" expression at the beginning fits the same expression of every day life which one may use to bring attention to the current status of something suggesting that it could change. Or it could be artistically used to state the permanency of a status indirectly by making the reader do the task of inferring that instead. So which of those two sides do you think the makers of the Amendment had intended?

Beside taking the risk of, not just artisticality, but artisticality against an opposing direct common meaning, and having to depend on that the reader has enough knowledge about the issue to reach the intended inference, there is also the question of why the necessity of a militia is more in need to be pointed out directly than its own everlasting continuity attribute?

Any one interested in real world thinking instead of deceiving the self here?

          

+189 (second amendment interpretation 134)

Continuing from the preceding post:

And what about the rest of the people? This is not something for which one should wait for a guidance toward the correct interpretation from a court. Instead, this is something for which people should ask their court why cant it catch up with them  and make the formal path matches the one everybody sees clearly in the amendment. One could go and ask its judges and if they respond with anything that seems justifying for their position brings it here (Again even anonymous comments are allowed here). I focus more on the court merely because of its authority not because there is any sophistication difficulty giving anyone an excuse not to see how the interpretation I am arguing for is clearly the one out there in the amendment.

+188 (second amendment interpretation 133)

In everyday life, how many people were believed for claiming not seeing something as clear as this Second Amendment to what I am arguing for? How many decisions of fraudulent intentions were rendered against others for claiming missing something as clear as this? Or should that standard be changed here because Supreme Court Judges are at the receiving end?

What make things even worse is that they are keeping their precedent ruling for the side were they do not have the legislating backing if they were wrong. 

+187

I have been wanting to shout this to western countries for some time:
Criminal justice laws should be made with focusing on the right of the individual at the root, not on you being one group at the root. You should not step on the individual in order to make group identity flows from the top. That is not justice. 

  

+186

How many Supreme Court Judges you need to change a light bulb? Probably just one, but if luck was lacking enough to  dealing with the task like the Second Amendment or the First's anti establishment clause, the risk goes beyond that of simple failure to having that somehow a way was found to, instead, attach the light bulb at its glass end to its socket.   

+185 (second amendment interpretation 132)

The top court is still not convinced. I must have missed the equations with which it proved its interpretations elsewhere to mathematical certainty, right? 

Actually, much if not most of the cases it had made for other constitutional interpretations it had decided are very probably jokes relative to this.

+184 (second amendment interpretation 131)

continuing from the preceding post

In case there was a confusion injected by some abnormal thinking here, starting from reasoning in receiving this  mental input empties the field to no contest against my interpretation (Who knows maybe I am a real life Gulliver and in my next trip I will land where I argue against walking on hands instead of feet calling the latter "my way of walking").

But although I like to make thoughtful arguments instead of  shouting wake up calls, I finally put more effort to resist that temptation and its potential guilt of suggesting to the opposing party reasonability instead of the abnormality of its position and forced myself to return back to the basic direct level of taking the Amendment because of how much it felt bad to allow that to be skipped over, a while before it occurred to me to go that far to the start in how we mentally deal with the world in every thing we do, and point that out.    

+183 (second amendment interpretation 130)

Having the need to point out here that we always start from reasoning when interpreting any mental input we receive, reflects a level of abnormality in the thinking of the opposing side in this issue that is akin to what is seen in rehabilitation training situations to restore the connection of a patient to limbs of his body for which he lost all control after sever physical trauma.      

+182 (second amendment interpretation 129)

Continuing from the preceding post:

In the joke mentioned in post +180 what was the mistake of the children? Their mistake was that they were in a classroom and therefore unless proven otherwise, every statement should be taken as fitting that teaching environment it came inside it. Likewise here, reasoning being the start of everything we do makes reasoning the largest environment containing everything sent to us and therefore everything should be taken according to it unless directed otherwise from within.

It seems that this approach makes things much easier because we deal with all the details under this big umbrella of reasoning. Ironically, because I couldn't see how it is an  honest way for interpreting that statement before the second comma by prejudging it then taking it according to that prejudgment instead of letting its text take you wherever it takes you, if it were not for the court's prejudgment of that part before the second comma I wouldn't have sought this counter prejudgment and as a result found this apparently better path than my original.    

+181 (second amendment interpretation 128)

I so often find myself looking from a few steps back at the whole picture and scratching my head about what unfit makes this Amendment deserves such confusion. It would be ironic if what I am arguing for can be proved with guns but imagine it a question of life or death for the responding with those who made the Amendment in the next room to judge the answer with perfect honesty, how many would really interpret the Amendment different than my view, let alone agree with that of the court? 

Like it has been emphasized in the preceding posts, the part before the second comma should serve a material purpose. That is the correct way for writing a constitution, at least one like this written with inclination toward calling for actions as demonstrated with using the word "shall" generally to express that something should be done.  And as it is  everywhere it is required to complete a process by building on the work of a predecessor, one assumes the preceding work was done correctly. 

Reasoning  is the beginning point of everything we do. Even when we follow what we are told in a constitution, it starts with recognizing that it is telling us something not reasoning with us, with reasoning. So, does reasoning tell us that by default we should start with taking what this constitution says, generally or specifically for the part before the second comma, as stating something on us and above serving a material purpose? Therefore except when having the intention of stating not reasoning proven through reasoning first, reasoning continues its application on the part of the Amendment before the second comma wholly and partly.        

  

+180 (second amendment interpretation 127)

Yesterday I noticed how much taking the part before the second comma like the way the court did in its opinion fits a simple joke in my native language I read a long time ago. It goes like this:

The teacher : Live the monkey in Africa (equivalent to "The                             monkey lives in Africa" in English Grammar) 

The children in the class: LIVE! LIVE! LIVE! (the equivalent                          of "live" there is also for "long live" as an                                      idiom)

The monkey statement was taken, like here, in a way that does not fit the environment but from the other side. In that case it was a teaching environment but the children, enthusiastic about monkeys, understood that statement as for action.   

     

+179

My story with the Second Amendment here is like that of Superman except that I am the earthy one while everybody else flies far from normal thinking. 

+178 (second amendment interpretation 126)

The collective understanding could be a distraction and impediment to my stand if you, as not believing in my position, look from a neutral ground. But if you look for a support for your own opposing position then I do not see a reason for giving a preferential treatment to your wrong. 

I also do not agree with skipping over the capitalization of the word "State" without putting good effort to give that its proper weight, in order to get easier path to refute that understanding.  

  

+177 (second amendment interpretation 125)

Because it is related to a matter that can severely affect even those who do not participate with any choice, I tolerated being silent about how I see that collective right only argument as wrong thinking let them get convinced with whatever convince them. But now I think that it could be just a distraction and impediment for others against seeing what they really shouldn't have missed or ignored. The only elephant in this room that has not been accounted for, is the conditionality based on the type of general environment. If this poor elephant has not been standing here for the better half of a century or more and we are still living those earlier times of human quantitative strength against the military machinery then the Second Amendment would have clearly given individual right to keep and bear Arms. I have never hesitated on seeing it that way and I think if you survey people outside this country with basic following lines in thinking capability (for example above that of assuming a connection was claimed by the government between 9/11 and Saddam's Iraq just because of the kind of talk about the two that happened during that time) then I would be surprised if less than 80 percent would agree with me here. I cant even see why "self defense" needed to be invoked for that.

Yes, even in my first language the literal equivalent to "bear Arms" is probably more commonly used in the collective sense than individual one. Still, aside from anything else, if they wanted that meaning, do you think that they would have preceded that phrase with "keep and"? Do you think that they missed how preceding "bear" with "keep" could take it away from its idiomatic meaning as attached to "Arms" to its original meaning?

However, at least this side tried to suggest a material effect for the part before the second comma, unlike the individual right one which I do not know how much tolerating the way it treated that part would bring us closer to probably one day hearing the court respond to an argument about a part of the Constitution, with saying that it does not count because those who made it were just joking there.      

+176 (second amendment interpretation 124)

Continuing from the preceding post:

If you can add support from both sides why would you be content with one? It is not like the part after the second comma calls for a hardly related thing. No, like how the militia in the part before that comma refers to an assembly where quantity  of people is utmost importance, the Arms in the part after has its best effect through the magnitude of the quantity of people it empowers. And both fit with the pointing to the status of the militia with "being" because of the importance of that quantitative measure for security at that time.   

+175 (second amendment interpretation 123)

There is a scene in The King of Queens sitcom where the guy was bringing together bread slices and peanut butter and jelly and his father in law asks him if he was making a sandwich so the guy responds sarcastically "What gave me away?". Here also, you have "being" pointing at that environment (unless you take the part before the second comma as purely  conditional or hypothetical which is even better for my position) and you have from the other side the part after the second comma gives a right related to arms, yes arms not weapons in general, in an environment, far from being like ours, where generally the biggest factor for wining battles is the number of persons on a side with their arms. Moreover the word "arms" was not let loose but it was capitalized by the same people who did not capitalize the word "law" anywhere in the Bill of Rights despite being capitalized everywhere it was mentioned in the constitution. 

+174 (second amendment interpretation 122)

To this moment all the general Second Amendment applicability arguing I have found wherever I look has been about whether it gives a right to keep and bear arms to individuals or collectively, without ever reading or hearing even one person suggesting or even just wondering why "being" should not be understood as limiting applicability to the kind of that referred situation.

Who would have thought that in real life one reaches a place worthy of being with those in Gulliver Travels? 

By the way, in case it is thought otherwise, the reference to the part before the second comma as "controlling" the execution of the part after it was an indirect one passing thorough that the part before the second comma should be intended for an effect which happened to be controlling here (in the sense of yes or no depending on fitting the condition or environment described in that part).   

+173 (second amendment interpretation 121)

Although a general reference to a "cautionary approach" in writing a constitution was made in the preceding post, the huge issue of taking the risk of making a mere clarifying intent susceptible to being taken for affecting execution especially with a statement that lends itself to that like the part before the second comma in the Amendment deserves a very special and big shout by itself. It is hard to avoid seeing such view as uncalled for insult at least when the absence of things suggesting something even close to such recklessness in the Constitution is considered. The Amendment could have been written in a way where the part before the second comma is dissolved within the part after it (like in Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right ...) instead of this clear separation form and the risk of seeing the part before the second comma as controlling the execution of the part after it would have been still huge.

So even without considering whose view would get more votes inside the country or out, this point by itself makes merely finding my view as reasonable alternative a huge problem for the view of the court but not vice versa.

+172 (second amendment interpretation 120)

Continuing from the preceding post:

Even with things directed at specialties, it is hardly seen unwise to seek the view of the fresh external eyes of a layman. On the other hand although a constitution is like a manual for a device with dangerous consequences if miss used, that manual was written for the public. Even if that manual also contains some parts designated for sophisticated users, the average person should not need more than careful reading and self control to follow the instructions of a manual when starting at the root. Likewise, here we are not differing on the extent to which something should be applied in this discussion about the Second Amendment but on its core meaning. Also the opposite side did not make any argument showing why the meaning it claims needed to be expressed in that manner for one to assume there was a need for a different start here.  That of course goes on top of the need to justify the existence of making a part like that for only a clarifying purpose there especially in short amendments showing focus on executionary use like those in the Bill of Rights to begin with. Even where there is much less needed cautionary approach than that of writing a constitution, how often have you seen in the operating or assembly instructions of a manual a part intended for no execution like the other side argues for the part before the second comma of the Amendment?

By the way, usually when someone suggests a meaning that is not the direct one like this court did with the word "being" in the Amendment that lacking gets offset by that meaning being the more obvious one but in this case the court has neither. 

+171 (second amendment interpretation 119)

Again, I want to go back to ask how much people here are unexcused for interpreting the Second Amendment this wrongly despite its clear meaning to everybody else? This is not like something that can be only witnessed and tested in a lab or an internally felt or experienced thing so one may doubt if others can really see the same thing, for people here to act like they are alone in the world. The Amendment is a text that can be submitted to anybody to read and was written in a language that is already either the first or the second for most of the world. I would be very surprised if any reasonable percentage of people would not be inclined to my view far more than the current interpretation and that they would accept taking my view as the interpretation for the Amendment at least at the same proof standard the Supreme Court here accepts interpretation for other amendments and like sky to earth at the level the court may interpret things when it gets hijacked internally by psychological motives like the way it took the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Actually, would there be any reasonable percentage considering the current interpretation as an alternative unless it is brought to them, to begin with? What has been going on here is much more like having a party than serious interpretation. Do you really think that any normal person outside would be anywhere close to taking "being" far from its direct meaning and that the part before the second comma was not intended to affect execution of the part after it like it has been taken here? If you do then lets do this test.

  

+170

Related to post +166, I found later that there is no parole in the federal system. So does it seem fair that that guy and others in similar positions spend their lives in prison like those who killed other people? From their reaction after sentencing, it seems as if even the family that suffered from being held hostage itself were not that enthusiastic about the apparent severity of that sentencing, as expressed by saying that they are just glad it is over or something like that. Why is it that all the thoughts of mercy and forgiveness only fall on a person after he crosses the line of killing another person? I don't only think this behaviour is wrong but I see it probable that inside it called for by that establishing identity behaviour to which I keep referring (However, again, do not forget  that I am permitting myself to talk about that identity thing at the level one may point to a box as the intended target even though it could be what is inside it). Why is it that the no cruel and unusual punishment part of the constitution is not sought to be applied on situations like this instead of the unimaginable argument of applying it on death penalty implementing an eye for an eye  punishment for the act of killing another person (still targeting only equality at the level of the end result of taking a life and not the pain associated with that) which is what has been understood as justice probably since the beginning of humanity. Also, I wonder how much the constitutional power given to the president to pardon and commute is taken as intended to be a helping chance of a safety net for the system that should be sought in terms of appropriate use instead of merely how more or less it gets used. If it were me I would ask congress to either take responsibility on that or authorize funding for me to create entitie(s) helping me in carrying that authority as a responsibility.