+229 (second amendment interpretation 174: Meaning versus Purpose)

Yesterday I noticed a confusion that not only led me to write what otherwise I would not in my recent posts but also had a major effect on me since the beginning. Does the word "being" in itself take us to either the limited time or the forever meaning? No it does not. It simply says that something exists now and does not say it exists beyond that. We take those meanings in various situations from the purpose not from the meaning of the text and one should be very careful not to see those two things as one . If for example, Jim says to Jack that the thing the latter wants to do takes much time, what is the purpose of Jim? Advices Jack not to do that thing or helps him get prepared or just let Jack take into account that information? We do not know. However the meaning of what Jim said is clear. Saying something for a purpose does not necessarily imply that purpose is the meaning of what was said. Same thing here, we need to first try to take the text itself and see to what it leads us to do. We may need to go back and think about what could be the purpose if only we cannot figure out what to do, not confusing itself by thinking about the purpose from the onset. This does not mean ignoring the purpose but instead it means taking it better by including the purpose of how the end purpose was led to.

+228 (second amendment interpretation 173: What was that I wrote? )

What was that I wrote in the two posts below? How is it better "being" argument against that that word was intended for everlasting application, than the "artistic expression" one which I discovered wrong lately? The reason that made me go wrong there is that I did not take into account seeing that word as intended for mere existence, not duration as it appears to me and here I repeated that same mistake. In addition, my arguing against "being" intended to apply forever by taking that to imply "being" equivalent to "always" also comes from that focus on duration as the only intended purpose for using that word.

I did not notice my earlier mistake then came back to repeat it here despite how in between I wrote those posts about the role of the first comma in pointing out differentiation not just causation with "being". 
There are other issues for reevaluation in the two posts below. But related to the issue of generally taking "being" as intended for duration and not for mere existence by default, on second thought, absent adding special argument for specifically this word here, doesn't the continuous form of a verb put doing the action not the result of that action as the direct meaning, and therefore it is the first meaning?  
Actually, if this question is answered affirmatively and there is no argument for an exception for specifically the word "being", I may not need to review the posts below in order to use it neither the argument they intended to replace. I may not repeat the assumption that the opposing side applied the duration meaning for "being" first in order to reach his mere existence meaning but I would still say that by default this meaning cannot be taken without proof giving it priority over the duration meaning.  
But, still on another thought, the duration meaning path may be taken to answer the objection I just mentioned so I would still need to answer that path for the purpose of this technical discussion for the use of the word "being" in general.      

+227 (second amendment interpretation 172: Better "being" Argument-2 )

In the last part of the preceding post instead of saying " that occurring is not the same while time passes" I should have said " that occurring seize to exist immediately with any passing of time" and that is what makes referring to the happening of an action different from even referring to actual objects here. While earlier there it was discussed why the time related reference in "being" should be taken as belonging to the environment at the time of making that reference, the last paragraph of the preceding post discussed  why the following environments cannot be combined with that one as one.  
To avoid unnecessary confusion let me point out an important distinction here. I am not arguing against that "being necessary to the security of a free state" should be taken as true until proven otherwise. What I am arguing against, here, is taking that directly from this quoted part instead of from the assumption that something in a state would remain in that state until proven otherwise. What I am arguing for is that that quoted part itself refers to only that exact moment in time when it was made (one may extend this mere technical level to the reasonable level of intending to refer to the environment within a time period then but taking it beyond this needs additional support (The "reasonable level" mentioned here is for reasonableness in the pointing action itself and not because it is needed to make the amendment work because, like it is pointed out above, it can work on the basis of assuming that something in a state would remain in that state until proven otherwise even at that mere technical pointing level)). 

+226 (second amendment interpretation 171: Better "being" Argument )

I have just spent more than an hour imagining other uses for the word "being" for expressing always existing statuses and feeling bad about how wrong I was in supporting my position by arguing that cannot happen except artistically. But in exchange I think that I got a much better substitute that stands against all those cases. Here is the new argument:

When a person speaks his speech is taken as being within time not timeless unless proven otherwise and the constitution is no exception to this. "being" taken as intended to refer to an always true fact here can be seen either as timeless or as adding persistency thorough out time and both need proof from the side making that claim.

Even if one sees the amendment as a rule intended for  renewed applications and believes that the probability of intending to refer to that specific application only,  prevents a constitution from making rules by examples, the subjective talk we have here states the result (the part after the second comma) undissolved and separate from the situation described  in  the cause (the part before the second comma).
       
So my position for the purpose of the word "being" is not only stronger with signs supporting it but also can fit the default way that word should be taken here while that of the opposing side can not.

To put the main argument here in different words one could say that the speech of a man comes from his existence and his environment is an extension to that existence. Therefore unless a more limited version of that existence is proved as the action taker, a time related reference should be taken as relative to that environment because it is part of the existence that preceded the action. Even if all other environments needed for making "being" equivalent to "always" are also seen as extensions to the speaker here, those environments did not precede the action in existence and therefore do not have the same priority for taking the time related reference as part of them like the one that existed at that time.   
This is the common view in the universe and a proof is required for claiming that things should be otherwise when making a constitution.  
If there were a part of a constitution saying "Horses should be allowed everywhere", I would not be able to make for it the same argument I am making here. That is because the passing of time has no effect on the definition of  what a horse is and therefore past and present environments can be taken as one. But  when there is a reference to the occurring of an occurrence, that occurring is not the same while time passes and therefore past and present environments cannot be taken as one. 

+225 (second amendment interpretation 170: The Root Focus )

I was thinking this morning that the only reasonable counter argument to my view is based on the use of the word "free". Even though one may find a purpose for the use of that word that fits that view, still is the trade of worth it if the intention behind the part before the second comma is to reason with practicality not freedom in principle? Wouldn't things be better without this word? So why take such a risk? Then in the midst of trying to find a better justification or explanation for the use of that word countering such risk, it occurred to me how the level of risk I see here, to begin with, may have been exaggerated because I also got partly infected by the way this amendment being taken here with missing focus and not following the path with which things were presented. That is because if I put the by far the most reasonable explanation for the use of the word being as the starting focus, as its precedence in the amendment directs me to do, I perceive no such risk. That starting view would be like the container according to which things have to fit in order to exist. And we have additional help here with how this "being" part was changed from succeeding to preceding the part after the second comma and was kept there throughout the development of the amendment.               

+224 (second amendment interpretation 169: NO WIGGLE ROOM HERE )

If it were merely about having an argument I make getting very unfairly snubbed  here, I could still be very willing to withhold  judging the person as a whole. But not taking action on an issue like this despite the clarity of reasons calling for that action, leaves no room for not seeing the whole person doing that as a bad person like one sees many mass murderers in history based on how the clarity of evidence against them suggest having no valid defence, even without hearing their counter arguments.          

+223 (second amendment interpretation 168: Necessary Actions )

I just want to point out that adding or trying to add talk at a higher level here should not be a reason for not taking a necessary action, just like how a person seeing a car moving fast toward him would not stay in the path of that car waiting to understand how car engine work.

+222 (second amendment interpretation 167: Inaccuracy in that article)

Struggling with how to fit the capitalization to no capitalization then to capitalization again, for the word "state" in that article to which I keep referring (link in post 214), I followed the link provided in that article itself for the first version that included the word "state" and found that, unlike how it is shown in the article, it is not capitalized in the source.  

+221 (second amendment interpretation 166: Use of Development History)

I am not sure which movie it is, but the way this court disregarded the development history of this Amendment in its majority opinion here reminds me of that scene of two guys sitting in the front seats of a car with one of them teaching the other how to drive. The first thing that teacher did was to immediately pull off the rear view mirror, threw it away, and say "first lesson in Italian driving: Never look back".

  

+220 (second amendment interpretation 165: The Change to The Final Version - 2: Simpler Argument)

Related to post 218, instead of going through the reasons mentioned there explaining why "the best security of a free state" was changed, here is an argument that is simpler at least when trying to apply it on alternatives like "the best security to a free state" or "the security to a free state". We have a problem here, but it is with a very innocent looking thing. It is with the word "the". On one hand, you cant use phrases like those above without it because that would make them applicable forever. One the other hand when it is present, it allows "free state" to be seen as qualifying or modifying the word "security" to a different meaning than the one wanted here.
+++++++++++++++
The above is wrong. Instead, the simpler argument that can be used on all the above examples and also those without the word "the" seems to be that when that part gets started with a noun, it is not clear whether "free state" is describing or constructing it.   

+219 (second amendment interpretation 164: The religious exemption provision)

The religious exemption provision is a very strong point for contrary views here for the purpose of capitalizing the word "state", but that is only because the Bill of Rights was, as I argued before, very wrongly taken as applicable only to the federal government. Otherwise it is very easy to see that as protection against the States without any need to see the Amendment direct at them first. Actually, while sides like the one with collective view may argue that the idea to focus the Amendment on the States developed later, how much the view that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government fit with such absence of anything suggesting targeting the states in the first version of the Amendment although it brings that religious exemption provision?           

+218 (second amendment interpretation 163: The Change to The Final Version)

The last version of the amendment before the final reads:

 A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (From that article about the development of the Amendment (link in post 214). Although I have an earlier version of that same article mentioning this without the word "best" as the version of the amendment closest to the final chronologically)  

The final version is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What could be the reason for changing "the best security" to "necessary to the security" and capitalizing the word "state"? For the first part of the question above, in an earlier post, I suggested that the reason could be to avoid understanding "the best" as referring to some unpractical pure/theoretical freedom need, but the blundering I have been making recently here led me to an additional view. This view also supports seeing adjusting that part of the amendment for the kind of environment change consideration, for which my position stands. The "the best security" in the first version above could be understood as describing quality without necessarily a role. In other words, the "of a free state" part could be taken as referring to merely the state to which the militia belongs but not necessarily to that the militia serves as the security there. The final version puts higher priority to describing the role that the militia should take and less priority to where (in terms of relative specificity) that role takes place. It does that by using "necessary to" to sever that dual meaning of role and belonging versus just belonging connection between the "militia" and the "free state" and instead replaces it with defining the role that the militia should be fulfilling, while using only specificity at the level of describing the target where that role should happen as one of the States.

+217 (second amendment interpretation 162: Being Partly Wrong)

I am wrong in my theory about suggesting that they were seeking the no connection between the militia and the free State in order to express more applicability on States. Here is the simple thing to which I should have been better prepared. If I say:

This well, being necessary to a thirsty person, it should be kept accessible    

Despite the use of being there, there is no need to actually have a thirsty person when speaking, for that statement to be true.

Therefore having the militia not belonging to the free State in "being necessary to a free State" does not make a difference since "free State" here is just a place holder for any State. 

However, aside from how I unnecessarily made things more complicated to say "any state", the theory related to limiting that any state generality by capitalizing the word "state" in order to better enable applying being necessary to the security of a free state as a test is not just still standing but significantly stronger today after the support mentioned in the preceding post.   

+216 (second amendment interpretation 161: Capitalized "state" and Local vs.General specificity-2:unexpected support from the development history)

I was just thinking about how the preceding post could be just a headache because of a far fetched probability, when I noticed this very interesting thing in support of it in the development of the amendment (link provided in post +214). I noticed how the "of" in the versions leading to the final, containing "being the best security of a free state" (and also the closest version to the final version according to a saved earlier version I have of that wikipedia article which do not have the word "best"),  imply belonging, unlike, at least at the technical level, the word "to", which when brought into the middle of the connection to that belonging, as part of "necessary to", the word "state" got capitalized.  

+215 (second amendment interpretation 160: Capitalized "state" and Local vs.General specificity)

As much as it is possible to take the being necessary to a free state test as being about any state that for which the militia in question can be seen as satisfying, as much as there is a better chance not to take a circumstantial reason for a change as an essential one (Although that may be much less applicable to circumstantial in depth reasons like the example in post 210. But also notice how the talk here could be a safer way to express the same thing that was intended with the earlier talk about not qualifying the militia). But back then who knew how the world will develop and how that development will spread around? Therefore as much as one extends that no association between any militia and any free state globally as much as the risk would increase for not acknowledging an essential change in an environment because of taking it with a different environment as one. Capitalizing of the word "state" supports identifying or limiting the environment where the being necessary to the security of a free state test should be applied. Even if we assume we are not now, had the word "state" not been capitalized and this country moved from then into an environment that is sufficiently different from even one other part of the world we could differ on whether to take the generality of "being necessary to the security of a free state" over the speaking background of the amendment or that it should be the other way around in applying it to test the environment for the necessity of a militia. Both the absence of specificity in associating the militia with a free state and the capitalization of the word "state" can be seen as working hand in hand to balance the effect of each other toward applying "being necessary to the security of a free state" according to the position for which I argue, by avoiding local specificity while providing a general one, in order to support application continuity or change according to the absence or existence of essential changes where it should be taken into account.   

+214 (second amendment interpretation 159: My preceding three posts)

I again looked at the development of the amendment available to me through the section in the Wikipedia Article about the amendment titled Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights to see how what I said fit. 

Starting from the earliest, post +211, if the capitalization of the word "state" is for the purpose mentioned there, how about all those earlier versions with the word "state" not capitalized? However I also realized that I was wrong in thinking that capitalization is needed for that purpose because I myself did not make good use of the first comma and started from the target instead of the whole environment when measuring changes that may affect the status of the necessity of the militia.

In the post about the word "free", I took that word as referring to freedom in the sense of not being attached to another entity. Even if  describing the militia as being "the best security of a free state (State)" can be seen to fit that, the description of the militia as "the security of a free state" in the saved version I have for this article (I need to look better for more reliable source for the development of the amendment) cant be.

In post +212, the theory there put direction as the purpose for capitalizing the word "state" while taking that capitalization for the side of the collective view imply a purpose of both directional and locational qualities. However, according to the versions in my reference source here, every time the word "military", which supports the directional purpose,  gets mentioned, the word "state" comes with no capitalization. Also, the versions toward the end with the word "state" not capitalized suggest going back and forth on the issue which fits something that requires judgment calls like the purpose in my theory not something at the root of what should have been already decided like that of the collective view interpretation. 

But, I also realized yesterday that despite having those on that side not arguing the type of conditionality in the amendment for which I stand, I may not need to argue against the collective view itself for my purpose. 

              

+213 (second amendment interpretation 158: The word "free" )

The word "free" seems to be added to support the theory of the preceding post because combining it with capitalized "state" seems to leave little room to take things otherwise, if at all.

+212 (second amendment interpretation 157: "State" Not "state"-2 )

On a second thought, I probably shouldn't have given priority for the explanation in the preceding post over my original theory about that capitalization being used for a purpose the need for it seems more in being the reason behind the form of expression used rather than follows from it. My original theory is that that capitalization projects a view from outside to tell us that the necessity of the militia, to which they refer, is about external dangers not something that requires policing the state.  

+211 (second amendment interpretation 156: "State" Not "state" )

Notice how much capitalizing the word "state" to make it refer to specific instance is better, if not even  needed, if the part before the second comma was intended to be followed with the measuring of changes in the environment my position calls for.

+210 (second amendment interpretation 155: Again, The First Comma )

This could be the strongest reason I have suggested for the purpose of the first comma. According to the position for which I argue, what separates claiming that the militia is not necessary for reasons like what we live from much less essential change of situation? For example, decades after the amendment someone could argue that having the union surviving this long removes that need for the militia. The first comma helps in answering that by making the part following it before the second comma refers to the whole environment so circumstantial changes like the one described above would fit much less. 

+209 (second amendment interpretation 154: Conflicts of Mine )

Actually, one may wonder, given that I refused both common interpretations here for the part before the second comma and how I argued against a constitution having an inexecutable part, shouldn't the theory mentioned in the preceding post be an already established position of mine? 

However, the part I want to change here is the level of executability I argued that statements should be in order to be part of a constitution, as much as that was contradicted by what made me move late toward the theory of the preceding post.    

+208 (second amendment interpretation 153: The militia talk)

Now I feel inclined to see not that they wanted to talk about the militia and controlled the talk according to the type of environment but instead that the whole militia reference was brought as a measure for the purpose of how change in the environment could affect that right to keep and bear Arms, to begin with. I am not suggesting a theory that they did not want that right for the sake of the militia but just that they did not want to mention that if it were not for the purpose mentioned above. 

+207 (second amendment interpretation 152: The "well armed" part)

Yes, I can see that the "well armed" part was removed from the version mentioned below. But even if you take that to imply that the purpose of the keep and bear arms clause is to protect the militia from being dismantled like the court says, that still does not contradict the purpose behind that being the role of the militia in relation to the security of a free State. I wanted to point out this, in case there is a confusion .

Also, that same assumed implication also fits how much the number of persons on a fighting side was a big factor then and taking that into account like this by the makers of the amendment adds support to the intention of pointing out the environment at that time with regard to the role of the militia for security, using "being".

By the way, I copy those initial versions from a version of a wikipedia article about the amendment but I just noticed that the word "arms" was not capitalized in the final version mentioned in that section which may call for reviewing the original sources or seek additional secondary ones on the accuracy of the versions written in that section.          

+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.