+206 (second amendment interpretation 151: The need for "being"-2)

The first version even used a semicolon and could have used "is" instead of "being" while keeping the form and everything else used there the same rather than saying:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

  

When the future justifies or explains past action between then and now like here, others get credited for their vision. The makers of this amendment instead had what they said get obscenely taken elsewhere.  

+205 (second amendment interpretation 150: The need for "being")

As if questioning that merely on the final version is not enough, I just want to know how could one allow himself to take choosing the word "being" as none essential choice like the general view here, despite seeing all that insistence on using it throughout the development of the amendment from the very beginning?   

+204 (second amendment interpretation 149: What an example this is!)

How many other examples could one find for people doing what they want to do without any excuse like this one? The signs and fittings for the side for which I argue and against the opposing ones make one feel like being submerged. Anyway, lets point out one additional part of this ocean.

Do you see how, in addition to the suggestion of actuality provided by the use of "being", the change in the development of the amendment from 
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state... to the current version, as it relates to replacing "the security"  with  "necessary to the security", also fits trying to express a practical need not a theoretical purpose about freedom?
This interpretation is also supported by an earlier change from a version using "the best security". 

Like it is mentioned in the preceding post, arguments like this should not be a distraction from how the part before the second comma of the amendment is open, like anything else, to be taken for reasoning as the intended purpose from the onset at least as much as that part is open for any other thing as the intended purpose. 

+203 (second amendment interpretation 148: Why leave the root?)

Looking from point zero, the interpretation and application of the part before the second comma of this amendment seem extremely simple and I wonder how much what I have been writing is actually making things worse by encouraging jumping this starting level.

In order to know how to follow anything I need first to know what it is. Seeing that part as intended for reasoning is by far the strongest of all possibilities. Would anyone argue against  it being taken this way if it were said elsewhere? So why should it be taken otherwise when it comes in a constitution?  

+202 (second amendment interpretation 147: Missing Comma?)

Even with this same level of specificity, wouldn't having the militia itself as the purpose need or at least be better expressed with an additional comma after the word "necessary"? 

+201 (second amendment interpretation 146)

A little while ago I thought of an example that is simple but seems very powerful in illustrating how compelling the explanation suggested in the preceding posts for the role of the additional specificity provided by "to the security" in the Amendment.

Suppose that someone you know had no access to his car so he comes asking to use yours to go to the supermarket saying:

I want to borrow your car keys to go to the supermarket.

You pull the keys from your pocket and give them to him saying:

Okay, go to the supermarket.

There is no problem here.

Now just imagine that your answer was instead:

Okay, go to the supermarket to shop.

How probable is it that that person would respond saying:

Why else would I go to the supermarket?

Do you see how the additional specificity provided by this simple addition of "to shop" made the other party question your position regarding the relationship between people ( or at least this person) and supermarkets (or at least a supermarket intended there)?          

+200 (second amendment interpretation 145: example change)

As usual, I wait until it is late at night to notice my mistakes or shortcomings. Anyway, I want here to improve the example I am giving from the one I gave in the preceding post to this:

If Jack and Jim are employees at the same company then Jack could say something like the sentence below to counter seeing him and Jim as friends:

I occasionally get together with Jim here to do work.

The reason I am doing this is that, in the example of the preceding post, having a material relationship of paying for a service, as the part "to service my car" suggests, could be seen as a change in width instead of  change in depth explanation  because it is not how friends deal with each other and this does not fit as a pass through relation like the one mentioned in the earlier post. In this example, on the other hand, doing work together fits both being friends and not being friends but it is being pointed out in order to give the depth of the purpose to doing the work instead of stopping in the expression at getting together allowing it to be seen as having the depth of friendship.   

+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.