+285: Two Decisions

I have decided to work on my Second Amendment argument on my own time instead of seeking fulfilment of that deadline. And in order to avoid confusing situations like the past I no longer intend to keep that weekly news check I kept doing.

+284 (second amendment interpretation 213: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 5: Corrections And Improvements)

First, although there is no shortage of other examples from the constitution supporting the general singularity view  for capitalization of common nouns, my army example  probably was not a very good choice. That is because having the action of soldiers entering into a city based on orders from the leadership of their government could bring the focus on attributing the action to the government and through that to that State because of representation, like how I once before argued for treating  a State as one whole thing, not the coherency of the group. A better choice would have used for example the coherency of a family. One for example could say that a family entered into an area if one of its adult members enter into that area with the knowledge of the others.

Having gotten that out of the way, now lets get to more essential improvements. 

First, one may need to pay attention to that the first comma was necessary to affect essential change to the text. It is not like it was inserted just to add some text, like in:

A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

In that case it seems like it could be argued that the commas around "composed of the body of the people" are just for introducing an unnecessary description.

Instead, the first comma we actually have blocks the subject  ("A well regulated Militia" ) of the whole clause preceding  the second comma from reaching the predicate ("being necessary to the security of a free State") of that whole clause.  

Since the latter still refers to the former, that reference must be to the former as the concept from which the blocked manifestation was originated. 

Now, lets improve the argument related to the use of the reference to "a well regulated Militia" as a concept only in "being necessary to the security of a free State".

The core of this additional argument is related to the scope of the word "the". The core role of that word is at the most general environment at which the concept of a well regulated Militia exists, not at individual cases of free States. 

Lets take an example here. The one I thought about is related to the cooking of a person. A person may say:

I have salt in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.

This is less similar to our situation here than having a  grocery store manager saying:

I have salt on the shelves because it is necessary to the cooking of a person.

And while a person who needs food with lower sodium may say:

I have salt-substitute in my kitchen because it is necessary to the cooking I do.

The grocery store manager may say:

I do not have salt-substitute on the shelves because it is not necessary to the cooking of a person.

So although the grocery store manager may take into account what the word "the" may designate in different individual cases, that word ultimately applies according to the level of the general environment of the grocery store in its relation to a potential cooking of a person (Yes, in actual grocery stores definition of necessity at that general level may be merely about common actual use of the product.  But if we imagine that grocery store belonging to the government because of law requirement to "supply what is necessary to the cooking of a person" then evaluating necessity at the grocery store level may begin from the capabilities the environment offers).    

Dealing with things this way may happen everywhere decisions gets made at a large scale. One thing that readily comes to mind here is the decision making at a government level.

And if it seems startling in our case to consider at the general level that a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free State, because different low probabilities still exist, one needs to consider that a similar thing also  done at the individual level in how the word "the" designates some special value of security protection, except that the other possibilities in the general level may belong to different states.   

By the way, the issue of comparing ground troops to a well regulated Militia is a good example for how the first comma changes things with its focus on fitting the need to the concept of a well regulated Militia not the manifestation of that concept. Without that comma the need for ground troops by almost any military would have fitted the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part because military ground troops fits being a well regulated Militia.

+283 (second amendment interpretation 212: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 4: Better "concept" Argument )

Instead of the way I argued for that "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to the well regulated Militia as concept only, in the section titled Connecting Through The First Comma, couldn't I just said this:

The reference to a well regulated Militia at the beginning fits any well regulated Militia but the first comma blocks that reference from connecting to the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part following it. However the latter still try to refer to the former. This leads to that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part refers to a well regulated Militia from the closest possible point which is its concept root. 

+282 (second amendment interpretation 211: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 3: I Noticed This 2 )

Something has been pinching me about using the word "actual", and I just noticed that I probably should have focussed on the difference between a well regulated Militia as an instance and as a concept, not as an actual and as a concept.  

+281 (second amendment interpretation 210: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 2: I Noticed This1 )

Since the preceding post is long, I intend not to change it even within the 24 hours I usually give myself after posting and instead point out potential issues to be corrected  in separate posts like this one.

Anyway, this is a series I call "I Noticed This" to point out that I recognized a potential issue and intend to work on it

This first one is related to the "Connecting Through The First Comma" part and is related to how I might have contradicted myself when I refused to count in the concept in the actual thing when it comes to affecting the next part but I counted it in as a reason to prevent that actual part from surviving the first comma.

Also, without the first comma the part of the Amendment before the second comma would probably be just a reference to an actual well regulated Militia not either just concept or an actual one like I said. 

+280 (second amendment interpretation 209: Argument For The Whole Amendment )

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.

The Two Parts And The Continuous Validity Requirement

Let's start with the usual way of separating the Amendment into two parts around the second comma. There we see that the part before the second comma has its own independent existence from the part after the second comma, unlike if, for example, it were part of a "because" statement. Therefore there is no question that its validity is required for each execution of the part after the second comma. But since the execution related to the latter requires just abstaining from doing somethings, it may be seen as just one execution and therefore requires the part before the second comma to be valid just once. 

The comma before "shall not be infringed" (the last/third comma) provides the solution for the issue above. It divides the result that would occur if the condition before the second comma is true, from a one stage result to a two stage result. The first of those two stages asks if the right of the people to keep and bear Arms exists, while the second stage applies the condition that that right should not be infringed.                

Or, we could say that the third comma takes away the part between itself and the second comma from being part of the execution that would occur if the condition before the second comma is true. It instead separates that part as belonging to neither the condition nor the result, but just something on which or related to which the execution occurs if the condition before the second comma is true.                 

Regardless of which view is prefered, the condition before the second comma must continue to be true in order to make the part between the second and third commas continues to have the condition that it should not be infringed applied on it.   

Capitalization of Common Nouns

We know that common nouns that come attached to proper nouns should also be capitalized (For example Everest Mountain, not Everest mountain). Therefore the effect of capitalizing common nouns like the words "state" or "militia", is that it makes them refer to all proper nouns targets of that type. Since any instance of a common noun can be called by a proper noun, capitalizing common nouns makes them refer to their instances in proper noun target forms.    

The definition of a proper noun states that it refers to a "single" thing. Not only arguing for restricting this singularity carries the burden of  proof here, but this general singularity is also, by far, the reasonably applicable one. Otherwise, we run into problems in identifying the class of things to which a proper noun target belongs and how much that can differ from one perception to another.

This general singularity implies that the components comprising  a proper noun target do not have existences as individual things. 

Even if the word "State" is taken to refer only to states in this union, that does not take away the validity of applying the conclusion above on this word. It is not the capitalization of that word that may make it limited in its reference to only the States in this union but the environment where that reference is used. If for example the manager of a restaurant or cafe or theater instructs his employees that "No Chair shall be left unstable", it would be understood that that instruction is about the Chairs in that place. However it would be also understood that that instruction also prevents bringing unstable Chairs from the outside to that place and keeping them in that condition.

The effect of capitalizing any noun on that noun is the same wherever that noun is mentioned in the constitution including its amendments. Not only that understanding should fit all capitalizations in the constitution but it is also very probable that without it there would be big troubles in numerous parts of the constitution and this could be a severe understatement. Let us take a tiny sample of that in just the word "House" in Section 5. How would that section work if the capitalization of that word does not make it taken as one single thing? If House is not taken as a single thing and therefore each of its members has its own individual existence, then for it to be "the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" or "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" would require each member, by itself, to have those qualities. If so then nothing will be done without 100 percent agreement on those things. It is the singularity provided through the capitalization of the word "house" what makes the collective view here the only path.

 Now, let's see how the word "State" itself was applied in the constitution at what appears to be the most suitable part for this purpose, Article 1 Section 10. 

Let's start with "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.."

Without the general singularity understanding, those parts would also apply to the people. In other words, it would be for example unconstitutional for a person who is a factory owner in one State to be in an agreement with a supplier person in another State, for raw materials it needs. That is because their States would also be considered to have entered into that Agreement. Because it is good enough for a thing with  components having their own individual existences to be into another thing if only one of its components is completely inside that other thing. For example, people may say that an army entered into a city if for example some of its soldiers enter into the city (Yes, more than one soldier may be required in this example in order not to see the action being done at mere personal capacity but that is not an issue for our case here). People may also say that an army entered into two different places at the same time and that cannot happen if all the army is required for both places.

On the other hand, with the general singularity understanding, one can see how the capitalization, not just from one end but from both sides (the State side and the Treaty, Alliance, Confederation, Agreement sides)  prevents that from happening. 

Now what if there were also this statement in the constitution: "No State shall plant a palm tree"? would that apply also on the people there or just on the State as a single thing? The answer is that it would not apply on the people of the State directly but it would lead to the same result through imposing that requirement on the State. On the other hand people inside a free State would not be under having the being free requirement imposed on them because of imposing it on the State, because a State can be free as one single thing in the world without its components being free inside.

Now let's continue with Article 1 Section 10 taking 

"No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"

Without the singularity view, wherever the forbidden produced thing is not by definition something only a government can do, those restrictions seem to flow down to the components of the State as things with their own individual existences and therefore apply also on the people of a State. On the other hand, with the singularity view, they are not. That is because all those restricted actions contain as part of them a reference to the identity of their doers. For example, Bills of Credit include the issuer of those Bills and Debts are assigned to a debtee. Therefore such restrictions will not be imposed on people when imposed on the State because those actions are not the same actions when done by the people of the State, unlike how planting a palm tree has no connection in its essence to the planter of the tree.

Related to the word "state" one can also get into its not capitalized occurrences in the Twelfth Amendment.  

Continuity and The Word "being"

If I say Children are playing in this street then, technically, it can be assumed that children are still playing in the street, based on only the information provided in that statement. But with Children playing in this street, as in Children playing in this street, drivers should be careful  The first part now conveys just a snapshot of the action without continuity in the part itself. Instead there will be only the continuity related to the assumption that things stay the same way until proven otherwise.

The same is true with "being necessary to the security of a free State" here. There is no continuity from the authority of the constitution beyond the duration of "being".  After that period (or point in time), continuity comes from assuming that a thing stays at its status until we know otherwise from reality. 

Dealing With The Affirmation of Facts

As pointed out above, the direct authority of the constitution related to the affirmation of facts in " being  necessary to the security of a free State" no longer exist but instead what exist is the assumption of the continuity of that status until it is proven otherwise by reality and facts . However, the test for reality change still depends on what was meant by what was said. In dealing with the meaning of what was said it is very essential to avoid an unbalanced approach resulting from a partial view. There are multiple affirmations in that part of the Amendment, not just the usual take out fact, and we must walk the line there. This approach was applied in the discussion below  

  

The Word "the" in "the security"

It is important to give that word sufficient attention. It should be taken the same way it would have if the constitution were to say "Do only what is necessary to the security of your free State". How much that word designates a special value and not there just to highlight security in general is the same in both situations. 

The word "security" here is not capitalized and therefore it is not a single thing and therefore each of its parts has its own  individual existence. That means for the necessity description to apply it must be necessary to every part of the security that can be separated from "the security" and it will remain a security. Therefore "the security" in the assumed statement above cannot be a subset of "the security" mentioned in the Amendment, and vice versa.

But what if the makers of the Amendment saw necessity status there for what we consider unnecessary or vice versa? The answer is that we are not free to take additional precaution by going deeper into that side on our own without facts calling for such action. We do not have extra margin safety on the necessity description  here. That is because with the affirmation of necessity as a description also comes an implied affirmation for the existence of necessity as a concept that was used in measuring the fitting of necessity as a description and we are obligated to follow how the facts guide us between those two affirmations.

    Connecting Through The First Comma 

We start with a reference to a well regulated Militia. We do not know at this stage if that reference is to an actual or just the concept of a well regulated Militia.

Then we reach the first comma which separates that part from the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part following it. However, the latter still refers to that beginning part. But the comma separation is a text separation and not necessarily a meaning separation. In other words, with multiple potential meanings, as in this case, there is a copy of the text for each additional meaning and the comma is required to exist in only one of them. Therefore, one of those two potential meanings related to concept and actuality for the well regulated Militia at the beginning, may pass through that first comma. Since the concept of a well regulated Militia can exist without actual well regulated Militia but the other way around cannot be, the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part refers to the well regulated Militia mentioned at the beginning of the Amendment, only as a concept.

The capitalization of the word "militia" prevents the concept of a well regulated Militia, that comes as part of an actual well regulated Militia from being applicable to the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part, because it is there just as a component of the actual well regulated Militia and does not have its own individual existence. In other words, the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part not only refers to necessity of the concept of a well regulated Militia but also for that necessity to be through the level of a mere concept. The Amendment made  judging the validity of the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part neither dependent on one  actual free State nor on the general condition as indicated by the application on all actual free States. Instead it made the validity of that part dependent on necessity stemming from the concept of a well regulated Militia in its interaction with the general condition at the level in which the concept was made, and therefore actuality of the States does not matter. One can take the position that no State can be totally free and therefore no free State exist, and it would not affect the application of that part of the Amendment.    

 Development History

The first draft of the Amendment used the word "country".  Then, although the word "state" never used in a not capitalized form anywhere in the constitution before, here it remained not capitalized throughout all earlier versions. Then in the final version it came capitalized along with the word "militia" which was also kept not capitalized throughout all earlier versions. We also have all those military service exclusion for the religiously scrupulous.  

One can see through that how the external security for the whole union as one single thing in the world was the  main focus or at least had strong roots from the start and continued to be throughout the development of the Amendment with the final version representing  just a different way of implementing the same purpose. The word "country" seems to be the closest to mind when one thinks about freedom relative to the external world. But a country does not have a government, without statehood. This absence of government makes freedom as a single entity in the world meaningless because of the lack of representation. Therefore  replacing that word with the word "state" is necessary. Then we see how all that use of the word "state" not in capitalized form suggests intentional avoidance for capitalizing that word. That in turn suggests trying to avoid suggesting that the States in the union as individual units are the aim. Then we have that clear connection of the issue of external security with military service.  

Related to the conditional nature of the part before the second comma, we see how the first version was flipped from a semicolon separated execution and explanation form to the form of an execution dependant on a seperate reason preceding it, then remained in that form to the final version. 

We also see all the insistence on using the word "being" through out all versions. This support a technical intention behind the use of this word not an artistic one.

Also all the references to "the best security" supports that the word "the" in "the security" in the final version is designating a special value of security. 

Bringing The Pieces Together

The word "the" in "the security" is about answering this question in relation to the Amendment:

How should be that thing for which a well regulated Militia was seen as necessary?

It is not about answering this question in relation to the Amendment:

 What is that thing for which a well regulated Militia was seen as necessary?

So while keeping this role for the word "the" in the use of "the security" here in mind, one may ask: Is the concept of a well regulated Militia still calls for a well regulated Militia as necessary to the security of a free State?

Capitalizing the word "state" in the Amendment makes it one single thing and therefore its components do not exist as individual things and therefore the words "free" and "security" cannot apply on them. Therefore the question above becomes about freedom and security only in relation to the outside world not among the components of a free State.

Clearly the concept or part of the concept of a Militia is that it is the power of a State through some of its people as individual fighters. This directly relates to how combining the fighting power of individual fighters was the main way to bring a better power, to the level that no State with no outside entity on which that State can count for defending itself, because of being free, can risk not to have its own form of it. But that way of building power is now extremely ineffective and replaceable with much better things, because of the wide spread of modern war machinery.

Also the "well regulated Militia" cannot be considered here for the role of supplying the Military of a State with people because a Militia does not have to be well regulated for that. The "well regulated" description of the Militia must be necessary to the security of a free State in order for a well regulated Militia to be necessary to the security of a free State. Because whether in a manifested form or not, the well regulated description must exist somewhere. If it does not exist outside what a Militia is, then it must exist inside what a Militia is and that cannot happen because it would mean that that Militia is not one single thing as indicated by the capitalization of the word.

Like the case above, I cannot think of any other secondary role for the Militia here that needs it to be well regulated. 

Related to the definition of the word "Militia", it seems like  there is a big support in history that a Militia is comprised of only people. For example the earlier versions of this Amendment described it as "composed of the body of the people". Or the quote of George Mason saying  "who are the militia..They consist now of the whole people". However, if some argue that was just the implementation of that time, then they carry the burden of proof for that. Moreover, what prevented something written with consideration for the future like a constitution from having a more open view beyond having the right to keep and bear, not even arms but Arms to individuals as did the Amendment we are discussing? In addition, there is this interesting thing from the Samuel Johnson Dictionary. It defines "MILITIA" as "The trainbands; the standing force of a nation" and defines  "TRAINBANDS" as " The militia; the part of a community trained to martial exercise".  First, we see how that suggest strong support to that a Militia is composed of only people. Second we see how in both definitions the arrangement of putting the form first does not fit well with the form being just an implementation.       

+279

Related to the preceding post, I plan to finish by May 31. I could have continued to the finish line when I was posting in February, on my own, or had I taken potential signals I received as being related to a deadline instead of just a positive side (this is also one of the to whom it may concern posts).   

+278

Finishing with the Second Amendment is now the main thing I am trying to do. So nobody needs to worry for me with regard to that. 

+277: Gun Right And This Virus Situation

One good thing for arguing against having a right to keep and bear Arms when it no longer officially considered obligated by the constitution, is to question the wisdom of giving that right, despite how one is completely dependent on others good use of it and the sever consequences if things go otherwise, in comparison with all those business closing and stay at home advises or requirement for this virus situation despite how one has much more power in his hands on protecting himself and the much less sever potential if things go wrong.      

+276 (second amendment interpretation 208: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts - 2 )

Similarly in the "doctor" example of post +267, when technically arguing the role of capitalization, instead of saying that it makes being at the role of a medical doctor necessary, one can say that it prevents the description of the role (we can strip the role as much as we like then change it to a role and a description because even mere presence is a role) component of that word from being taken to be about the person component and therefore the description that a doctor is someone who treats people must be needed, to make the need for a Doctor. 

+275 (second amendment interpretation 207: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts)

I think that I got confused there and did not need the talk about the distinction between status and description I tried to make. Proving  the necessity of  "well regulated" as a description is good enough for the start of my argument. Then, from there, one can say that if this description has no necessary use in the environment then it is unnecessary and that makes the well regulated Militia unnecessary which makes the Militia unnecessary, because the capitalization of the word "militia" applies the well regulated description on the militia directly. In other words, because of the capitalization of the word "militia" one cannot say that  a militia is a group of people and therefore a well regulated militia means a well regulated group of people and therefore  not necessarily well regulated group at some role that group is required to take and therefore the necessity condition of the amendment applies on any militia. Capitalization of the word "militia" prevents that path because it does not allow individual existences for the components of a Militia. Therefore, the group component cannot cancel how it should carry a role it is required to take, by taking the  description of that role and making that description a description of itself (I took the role here as a description of the group but if one takes it as something requiring action then the process just described would need to be applied on the role itself first).        

+274 (second amendment interpretation 206: Another Argument For Capitalized References- 3: A Citation Support ))

While today's grammar text may not be so careful, this is how this grammar book from 1767 titled "A grammar of the English language" by William Ward, explains proper and common nouns on page 19 (After complementing Google on enabling direct copying of the text, below, I noticed that it is not an exact copy. But it is still good enough for my purpose here):

Noun Substantives are of two Sorts, the Proper, and the Common or Appellative. 

Noun Substantives proper are more usually called Proper Names; being intended each to express one single individual Object to which the Name is appropriated ; as, John N—, Mary M , London, Paris, Greece, Italy. The Thames, The Seine, Sec. 

Common or Appellative Substantives are Names, each of which is common to every Object of a whole Class or Species; as a Man, is a Name common to every Man ; and so of other Instances. 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=SsQDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA19

(Despite how the text looks like it was just scanned, I was surprised to see that google enables direct copying of the text. Maybe I need to try the same elsewhere before thinking that I would need to copy the text typing)

One can notice how the definition for  proper noun is worded in a subjective sense in the use of the word "intended" and the word "appropriated" while the definition for common nouns expressed things in a more direct form.

Also, like it was mentioned in the earlier talk about "well regulated Militia" here, the capitalization of the word "object" in "individual Object" requires the reference target of that word to be used directly not through seeing it meant an instance of a class. Of course, this is mentioned here to add supporting fit and not for direct support for my capitalized reference argument which I put closer to the root.  
(Never mind the change of text color in my posts. Google's editor seems to have its own mind)  

+273 (second amendment interpretation 205: Another Argument For Capitalized References- 2) )

A proper noun is described as a name referring to one single thing. In my understanding this singularity is general and therefore the components of that thing do not have individual existences within that thing. The opposing understanding may say that we do not need to go that far and that it is enough for this singularity to be only within a class. 

Names of things (I mean entities or as described by grammar rules "substantive" things)   can be only common nouns or proper nouns. So we ask a maintainer of that latter view : How about, then, classes of things capable of incorporating their own type? (For now the question presented here is related to things already common in existence outside. The capability to use things much less common or even existing just mentally is saved as a backing power).
Lets take the place class of things and discuss the question above. A place can have as part of it another place. So how can understanding singularity of a proper noun as being only within a class fit here? Or should we create further degrees of sub classes to apply singularity here? If so then this more arbitrary path adds significantly to the question of distinguishing the fitting class by the user. We may have two users one of them perceives a class where a thing can be single while the other cannot or do not see that class worthy of being recognized as a class. So what are the rules on the recognition of classes here to guide for common consideration? Also, what is the use for the singularity of a proper noun target?
Instead of this mess, the view mentioned at the beginning here do not require finding singularity but instead it suggests that a proper noun creates that singularity to enable the creation of things.  

+272: Not At The Final Stage

I am still at the individual component building stage of my Second Amendment argument and have not reached the organization and presentation stage for the whole yet.

+271: The Celebratory Mode Here

I talked about this before. Although I do not struggle to sleep worrying about miseries of the world, I am still far from feeling okay with how things look like a party here. There seems to be more feeling of celebration of the positive than regret for the negative. Lets not stray far from the fact  that some could have avoided death had they given the option to live where there are different gun laws which could have happened with different official interpretation for the Second Amendment.   

+270 (second amendment interpretation 204: Another Argument For Capitalized References )

This one is head scratching simple and direct, yet could very probably seen as the best.

Picking things from recognizing that capitalized references are general references to what proper nouns refer to, one could simply just say that those references do not refer to the parts of their targets as individual existences because proper nouns should refer to specific things. Taking the target with its parts also as other things with it, means the reference would be to a group and not specific. 

The concept of a proper noun is similar to the concept of a point in geometry. Even though there is no real end to how any area can remain dividable, we treat points as indivisible things in order to construct the geometrical world.  
The burden is on the opposing side to prove that the requirement that what a proper noun refers to should be specific, stops before reaching the equivalent of the indivisibility of a point in geometry. That is even more required here where the references were not directed toward things known only by their proper noun names. Instead, the capitalized references in the amendment used the unnecessary general reference to proper noun targets only.

+269 (second amendment interpretation 203: Adjustment(s) to The Preceding )

Seems like, in the bottom part of the preceding post,  following my style of touching my ear with the hand from other side, I unnecessarily applied "require" as equivalent to "applicable" when I could have limited the use to only the latter (and its negation) and avoided unnecessary confusion probability.
It is probably more important than the above to point out how my describing capitalized references as  references to the whole could be confusing and that it would have been better to look for better expressions or at least staying with the root here by describing them as internally inapplicable references. 

+268 (second amendment interpretation 202: How "well regulated" Tops Things Off - 2 )

Had the amendment referred to a "well regulated militia" instead, "well regulated" would have been applicable on the militia internally. This can lead to having the application of "well regulated" dissolved in the group part and changing from a status, if  we had it as a status to begin with, to a description only. But with the capitalization we have for the word "militia", "well regulated" will not be applicable on the inside parts and therefore remains not just a description but also a status. Being a status implies that the external environment outside requires the militia to be well regulated.   
There could be an objection here on the use of the word "status" arguing that it does not fit because being well regulated would persist even when the environment does not require that. The answer here is that that objection itself is the result of the dissolving action described above. Otherwise, when "well regulated" apply to the whole only and can not reach the internal parts as individual existences, we may have the thing with the statuses of being  well regulated or not well regulated, if the external environment of the thing requires it to be well regulated,  or, we would have the question about that status inapplicable, if the external environment of the thing does not require being well regulated to begin with.

+267 (second amendment interpretation 201: How "well regulated" Tops Things Off )

Although I am still working on improving my argument about capitalized references, I am going here to jump to the finish line then go back to work on the former later (Because I just checked and found what seems to be a Second Amendment related petition that is still undecided from October of last year).  

Someone could say: Okay, I see that the capitalization of the word "state" makes the amendment refers to only external security, and I also clearly see that in our time when I refer to the  external security I do not see not having a well regulated militia as in anyway a primary lacking thing, but how about secondary roles like for example supplying our military with people when needed?

Although this probably could be answered after considering how significant that secondary role to be worth making the militia necessary, it seems that the makers of the amendment prepared a direct technical answer even at this level. This answer comes through the combination of having the word "militia" capitalized and describing it as well regulated. Like the word "State", the capitalization of the word "militia" makes it refer to the whole thing only. That reference to the whole only, makes "well regulated Militia" refers to a specific value for the militia, which is that of being well regulated, and not to a range of values from where a well regulated militia happens also to be. In other words, what is necessary should be the militia with its being well regulated, not just a militia with being well regulated is required just as a description for it but not necessary.

For an external example, suppose that a company writes in its rules that while an employee is in need for a "doctor in medicine" he will have paid off days. Technically, that is open to the interpretation for a need for a medical doctor at any role, including those unrelated to the medical profession, like for example repairing the car of the employee. But if the word "doctor" was instead capitalized, then the reference would be to only the whole thing and for that being at the role of a medical doctor would be necessary.

Since for the purpose of supplying the military with people any militia would fit and not necessarily a militia at its capacity of being well regulated, such a purpose does not affect whether a well regulated Militia is necessary or not.

                

+266: "tradition, history and the text"

Above is a quote about interpreting the constitution here from the argument of the New York gun case at the Supreme Court. The first question I have here is:

If someone were to have his representation of himself ignored, as a punishment, which one of these two paths would be the harshest: To be treated like a legally minor child, or to be treated like one of the makers of this constitution?  

+265 (second amendment interpretation 200: New Argument For Capitalized References-4)

Here is the answer to what I wondered about in post +262, with a start from the root.

Because of the capitalization it has, the word "State" refers to all what proper nouns of state type target. The word "State" refers to the insides of those targets as separate worlds from ours because proper nouns refers to the insides of those targets as separate worlds from ours. The reason for the latter is that, unlike common nouns,  proper nouns do not use fittings in our world to refer to their targets. This absence of use of fitting in our world means referring to the inside of the target of a proper noun as a separate world because that absence has to be taken as one of the construction elements of a proper noun. If this absence is not taken as part of the proper noun then the same proper noun would not be referring to only one specific thing and that contradicts being a proper noun.    

+264 Arguing After This New York Case

I do not intend to restrict myself from continuing to argue the meaning of the Second Amendment after the oral argument for the New York case even if that meaning was taken as one of the issues. Actually, I could really think that a case will be about deciding that meaning but still continue to argue even close to rendering a decision by the court. The intention for using the time for the separation emphasis I mentioned before is about me putting good effort to do things that way but it is not about compromising my argument if I fail to complete my work earlier. 

+263: Weekly News Search

I have been wanting to say this for a long time but keep postponing it. This is related  to my auto google news search which I kept watching for probably years now. I made that search looking for normal search results. I, of course, still welcome artificial ones if the other side want them but I was not looking for them.

Yes, I once took the absence of results as indication for disapproval for something I said or did, but that came, again, because I thought the other side is the one who want that artificial creation of news. If this was not intended or no longer intended then the situation is very far from needing the other side to  modify its actions to fit my perception to reality here if that perception is wrong.        

And, by the way, I no longer as I was in the past looking for a case to be taken to argue things to the end. Although, seeing how this New York case look like a manufactured one, made me mistakenly think that the reason is the lack of filling for Second Amendment related cases.  

Related to that case, I do not care about how the upcoming argument look really about determining what should be done about the specific issue there. Instead I intend to check that argument carefully for Second Amendment inputs in general.   

+262

I probably felt it like a natural thing and did not pay sufficient attention when I made the preceding post to why should that reference be to another world instead of unknown world. However, whether I am wrong or right there, I do not intend to leave that argument as it is now.

+261 (second amendment interpretation 199: New Argument For Capitalized References-3)

Now I am more inclined to see that, unlike what I said in the preceding post, the earlier one had good enough depth but I needed to follow on that saying this which I now want to be my main argument:

Since a proper noun reference does not use a fitting in our shared world to refer to its target, it refers to the inside of that target as another world. Therefore, the inside of a proper noun reference target is out of our application domain. 

  

+260 (second amendment interpretation 198: New Argument For Capitalized References-2)

I probably did not go enough depth in the preceding post.
So let me add this update:

When there is a direct reference to a thing, as in a proper noun, the reference goes to the identity of that thing. Therefore we become under the restriction of how the structure of that thing was intended to be. That include the possibility that its elements were intended not to exist individually but only as parts of the whole. This restriction obligates us to take the thing only as a whole. On the other hand, with a common noun reference and even when there is only one thing that can fit, the reference do not target the identity of that thing and therefore we are not obligated to how it was structured beyond just fitting it in that container environment. 

+259 (second amendment interpretation 197: New Argument For Capitalized References)

Although the internal affectability of things is more common, it is not standing on its own without an enabling thing. It is more common because of the use of common nouns. Common nouns do not refer directly to things.  Instead they refer to fitting containers. Having those environments is what enables the internal affectability of things by constructing them according to those fitting environments. On the other hand, with proper nouns, the references go directly to the targeted things not to fitting environments containing them. Therefore we cannot affect those targeted things internally. 
In other words, we need access to the internal environment of things in order to be able to do internal effect on them. Common nouns give us that access but proper nouns do not.

Now, lets return to the capitalization rules of the language. We know that proper nouns should be capitalized. We also know that common nouns (like the word "state") should also be capitalized when attached to common nouns. Therefore, like how we take the word "state" as a general reference to any state, the word "State" is a general reference to what proper noun references of states target. Therefore, here, the words "free" and "security" are not internally applicable.

+258

Within the technical argument for the Second Amendment, courts have the choice to do things the easy way and accept the conclusion of my argument (including the addition I probably will make) that the capitalization of the word "state" makes the Amendment refer to only interstate not intrastate freedom and security, or the hard way making themselves vulnerable to potential attacks on all other decisions and conclusions they made but internally also depended on a similar role by a capitalization, related to the parts and the whole of an entity.    

+257 (second amendment interpretation 196: Divergence From Normality?)

I do not intend to stop the effort to provide the technical answer I see, at least not while I see that strong potential there, even if everybody were satisfied with how the big picture proves the interpretation I am arguing for the amendment. But I also do not want my effort for better technical answer to support that it is normal or reasonable to see things insufficient to support the interpretation I am arguing for, without  technical answer. That is because the big picture supports my position to the level that looking for the technical argument feels like looking for the technical answer that somebody under a rock and screaming "help" is calling for help and not telling people to help each other. Similar to how such screaming does not fit that latter interpretation, the opposing interpretation for the Second  Amendment does not fit why it was made that way.

In fact even before I noticed the path of this more technical argument, I cant remember ever tolerating in my mind even for a minuet imagining that the opposing  interpretation is correct. It always felt unsuitable like trying to fit a bigger box inside a smaller one. And this is coming from somebody who have leaned enough from the past to be careful about how humble his thinking compared to those in the intellectual fields and how it is often like butting a rock trying to add a new thing to what those other minds had passed on, let alone correcting them. Yet, all that never made me feel an inch closer to accepting that the way this amendment is taken here could be what it was intended for, and even just seeing that others could truly believe in it is unreachable to me.  

+256: Linguists Too Busy?

So, it is good enough for English linguists here to explain capitalization with the proper noun and those other just do and don't rules found everywhere but they pass on the capitalization in a document like the constitution we have as if  there is nothing that needs to be fitted or explained there in relation to those rules they give? Why? There isn't already enough perception that being a linguist is a useless profession? Or is it that they cannot catch their breath with new constitutions being made every several years like an IPhone?