+183 (second amendment interpretation 130)

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

+182 (second amendment interpretation 129)

Continuing from the preceding post:

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

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

+181 (second amendment interpretation 128)

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

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

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

  

+180 (second amendment interpretation 127)

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

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

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

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

     

+179

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

+178 (second amendment interpretation 126)

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

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

  

+177 (second amendment interpretation 125)

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

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

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

+176 (second amendment interpretation 124)

Continuing from the preceding post:

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

+175 (second amendment interpretation 123)

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

+174 (second amendment interpretation 122)

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

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

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

+173 (second amendment interpretation 121)

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

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

+172 (second amendment interpretation 120)

Continuing from the preceding post:

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

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

+171 (second amendment interpretation 119)

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

  

+170

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

+169

Related to post +164, I have just found out that if I click the "social" tab on Gmail I can read the comments made on any of my posts. Therefore I removed the moderating choice I made earlier and comments, including those from anonymous authors, should appear immediately.   

+167

Continuing from the preceding post

How much discrepancy there is in the punishment in the federal criminal law let alone that among the states?

In addition to having better laws as the primary solution  there seems to be a helping thing that could be used federally and also for any state that has in its constitution the power for an entity to pardon and commute sentences. For example, Congress could itself vote or delegate to an entity that could also be of its creation voting on recommending to the President pardoning or commuting the sentence for cases like the one mentioned in the preceding post. In other words, the constitutional power of the President to pardon and commute sentencing can be used to help correct or fine-tune application of the law.

Cases like this where no moral authority is needed to forgive for taking the right of a victim to live, are much more suitable for taking into consideration reducing punishment because of factors that could have affected a person toward choosing the criminal path. At least the victims themselves in the case mentioned in the preceding post for example could have been asked if a punishment like the one that has already passed now is enough as a punishment.   

+166

THIS is the guy to whom I was referring in the preceding post and THIS is his story according to the show.

The guy showed none violent tendency and despite his adventurous risk taking attitude with intolerance to stay in prison. Also his failing to make the girls support his alibi does not support him being a psychopath otherwise he probably would have been better at managing his personal relationships. 

Not much behaviour was reported for his two young accomplices but one could hardly see them as professional criminals with their accentual firing and probably also the way they tried to distance themselves from the situation.

HERE is another link for the sentencing which I am still not clear if it does or does not include the possibility for parole. In any case I wonder how much a behaviour suggesting respecting a line for human life not to be crossed was taken into consideration in comparison with other cases where that line was crossed. 

      

+165

I just watched a TV real story show about a guy who was sentenced to life in prison without parole. While others could kill and get relatively low punishments that gets even lower and lower with additional reasons starting from not being "premeditated" and going on, this guy, although  participated in armed robbery and abduction of the bank teller to do that and escaped multiple times from prison and done another bank robbery, never pulled the trigger on anyone. He was only 19 and who knows how after several years in prison and with genuine reforming effort done to him his character could change if the tendency for crime repetition was the reason for that sentence. So, I don't know how much of that sentencing was because people here see things upside down and how much of it because the guy is black.        

+164

Continuing from the preceding post:

I have just chosen to always moderate before letting a comment published, in order to be informed about the existence of the comment. This means until I read the comment it will not be published. This is the only way I found here to enable finding what comments were posted throughout my blog without actively looking at all my posts. Otherwise I am not inclined to do a censorship. I provided a feed back about the issue and letting a comment wait may not be a requirement to be emailed about its existence in the future.

+163

I have been wondering why with all those in the public agreeing with the stand of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment no body argue back against what I write here. However, I just noticed a little while ago that I had no comment capability by anonymous authors for this blog so I changed that. Now anyone can comment without revealing any identity.   

+162 (second amendment interpretation 118)

Upon reviewing what I wrote in the preceding post, I don't think I should have at this point argued for actively wanting the first comma to state "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a conditional status. That is because the more deserving reason for the first comma still seems to be the one related to prevent this quoted part from carrying a meaning of being about qualifying the kind of militia instead of being about the situation or the environment in general. However, this clearly does not include the argument about the default implication of that first comma for stating an if status. 

+161 (second amendment interpretation 117)

continuing from the preceding post

If we assume intending to avoid stating actuality in the part before the second comma, without the first comma, "being", which is needed to avoid continuity, seems to make that part less fit for the purpose. So we can say that we are doing the best we can. On the other hand, if you want to state an always true fact why would you choose to trap yourself in "being" to begin with?

Instead of taking the first comma as being intended to bring "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a fact, one can take the purpose as intending to bring that as a whole situation. Actually this is what follows directly from the role of the first comma here. It simply divided what otherwise would have been one situation into two changing the connection to a conditional one. The stating a fact view, on the other hand, adds the purpose of intending that separation to state a general fact to comeback and reestablish that connection.

+160 (second amendment interpretation 116)

continuing from the preceding post

Although the other side swims in unfitting things and signs against it, I find it hard to tolerate the appearance of even one. The first comma is more than tolerable to the position of the side demanding from the opposing one showing stating actual existence for the situation described in the part before the second comma. The view that the first comma is intended to state a fact is here countered with the view that it helps expressing the existence of the necessity to the security of a free State as the issue not the merits of that existence. 

+159 (second amendment interpretation 115)

It seems that while discussing whether the part before the second comma is for reasoning or stating a fact, one thing could become easily skipped unnoticed. That thing is about why  that part should be taken as being intended to refer to a real occurrence to begin with? Unlike the part after, the part before that comma by itself does not constitute a complete sentence for it to be taken as referring to the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the actual status at that time. Neither was there a use for a word like "because" to combine that part with the one following it and thereby extend the actual occurrence of the latter to the whole. Instead the part before the second comma was kept clean and undissolved. Without proof of actual occurrence, this leaves only its being a condition (like in an "if" statement) as how the part before the second comma should be taken and that clearly imply reasoning.  

Looking at the part after the second comma as immediately applicable does not necessarily need to be based on directly following it from the part before that comma being intended to refer to actual occurrence. Instead the part after that comma can also follow from applying the part before that comma as a mere condition first. 

That was a cautious approach. But on a second thought, why do we even need to by default accept that the part after the second comma is an actual order? It came with another part without even being the first in that combination to start with its existence. So why cant the Amendment be just telling us that when the part before that comma exist then the part after it also exist (as an obligation)?   
What follows from that is that even the initial applicability of the Amendment is not built into it.

+158

For whatever reason, real or psychological, the final court is not taking Second Amendment cases, why in the mean time it does not tell the lower courts that opinions related to the matter, like that of the Heller case, should be taken as mere arguments and are not required to be followed until further notice?  The additional input from those courts could provide questions to somebody taking a position like mine here while this court can look at both that additional input and its counter arguments. The current situation of having the appellate courts make varying interpretations for how to follow the opinions of this court regarding the Second Amendment should not be confused as allowing those courts to interpret the Amendment according to what they believe from the root. If the court is paused on this matter (even if because of being possessed by some evil spirit) then why not take advantage from this pause throughout all the judicial process not just its last point? I was thinking today why don't I look for how appellate courts were ruling on Second Amendment cases before the Heller case but even that could be just following previous rulings by this court on the matter and far from being the result of original thinking of those courts (Although I realized that the current pause by this court on the matter is probably more of the result of their voting on cases than it is being itself a decision that was agreed upon).      
For us outside, it also needs to be noticed that it is not helping the cause when doing things like, for example, possessing a stun gun but then go to this court complaining of the consequences of a state law against that and make this court find no alternative to save the complaining party except by applying its previous opinions about the Second Amendment while it wants to pause from doing that. In other words, if you believe that the Second Amendment no longer guarantees a right to possession of Arms then that would go both ways, for and against you, even when your state make a decision as  ridiculous as forbidding stun guns but allowing real ones. 

+157: Aggressor Over Victim "Justice System"

It occurred to me a while ago that had somebody told people when they started to find it hard to tolerate an eye for an eye system that this will extend to the issue of a death penalty for the killer, who would have believed him? However, at least here we have the question of doing irreversible thing and  the level of certainty for the guilt. On the other hand there are things that seems to be practiced here and probably other Western Countries that defy justice and provide no justification except probably to serve in creating a group identity. This identity urge seems so strong that, having moved from obvious discrimination, it sought itself a refuge in making nonsensical punishment laws and seeing them like normal things. I am referring to those laws that reduce punishment if the crime was not "premeditated". Not just that they defy the logic of the equality premise from the start, they do it to an astonishing level.  You hear things associating low sentencing numbers with intentional crimes as if it happened between an unequal sides just because a killing was not "premeditated". It is as if those societies had decided to discriminate against themselves giving whoever to be in the aggressor place the privilege. Yet, this nonsensical behaviour is passed on everyday like it is a normal thing.

The only explanation I can see for such deviation from normal behaviour is the establishment of group identity I mentioned above. I previously likened this in my thoughts to the exaggeration of acting as if the whole country is one family. But couple of days ago I noticed how the analogy of a person injuring himself provide a closer path to the issue of identity here. 

Even just from the logical point of view and aside from the question of justice, those in the Western World are severely deluding themselves if they think that all their achievement in science is even close to eclipse  such nonsensical behaiour. 

+156 (second amendment interpretation 114)

It seems like much of my recent posts were about a solved problem because those in the court have preceded me to seeing the final point here and it was something that shouldn't have been missed. I wonder if it is seeing reasoning as the purpose for the part before the second comma through differentiation between connecting to text and connecting to action in it. If so then I personally need more work to see it clearly. Or it could be neither this nor anything that was close to my thoughts. I also need to see more clearly my own talk in recent posts for why the container thing to which I keep referring and the other thing I mentioned about putting existence over what they said in the part before the second comma. 

+155 (second amendment interpretation 113)

In support of what was said in post +151, notice how having, not just the text itself that is before the second comma, but also a container representing existence in which that text was said, is an integral part to stating that part of the Amendment as the reason for the part of the Amendment after that comma. That is because the text there only mention the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the reason even though the reason, pointed at accurately, is the State where a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. But that reference to the State as a container was not supplied in the text. 
If we were not supposed to take the text said in the part before the second comma through a container representing existence originating that text, then that part of the Amendment would have needed to also point out that the militia belong to where it was described as "necessary". For starter, one may think of :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of its free State,...
Or 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State where it belongs,...    
It seems that the Amendment was taken as carrying this meaning even though it is not stated directly in the text. Why would the Amendment stop in its clarification on this point even though it went as far as saying, not just "necessary" or "necessary to a free State" or "necessary to the security", but all the way to "necessary to the security of a free State"? Actually, the more it is argued that no attention was paid while making the Amendment to the gap of having this left out, the more that will also suggest more depth for dependence on the existence originating that text.  

+154 (second amendment interpretation 112)

I want to replace speaking about the "separating words" I mentioned in the preceding post with saying:

The form mentioned there for the Second Amendment would have, contrary to what we have now, a meaning for putting what they say over (control-wise) existence. That is because the use of "because" there could suggest eliminating the separate existence for the part before the second comma by dissolving it in the mixture with the part after that comma through explaining it as the reason for that part.

Calling the use of a comma in such position for merely separate words is probably better reserved for when the words directly around it could construct a different meaning. Related to this, I wonder if, linguistically, "state" would have been open to connect with "the right" on the other side of that comma as a verb here if it were not capitalized.  

I also want to point out here that putting existence at the root permits us to deal with what was said like anything else we hear with regard to separating witnessing from mental opinions and beliefs. It is through this middle layer then one proceeds to take the part before the second comma as reasoning.    

+153 (second amendment interpretation 111)

It is not a rare occurrence for me to get confused in what I myself was saying earlier. The correction in the preceding post was not needed and this may have been already noticed. The part of the Amendment before the second comma is entirely reasoning even for the snapshot taken with "being" and regardless of the intention behind the second comma. That is simply because, as mentioned in post +151, they put existence over what they said in that part. Had they instead used, for example, the "because" form  (Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed), mentioned in the opinion of the court as being equivalent to the Amendment, then that would have put what they said over existence. That is because the second comma would have been at least very open to be understood as for merely separating words not existences and that would have made just stating not reasoning the content of the part before the second comma at least a probable meaning (Although, as mentioned in earlier posts, because of "because", even if existence was seen to be put over what is being said there that would be connecting it to expressing the reason not the reason itself).

One may also notice how much the order of the two parts around the second comma was needed for this. Had they put the reverse of this order then it would have been possible to argue for the content of the part currently before the second comma as being stated not reasoned. (While it is not necessary here, it is interesting how this fits the history of the legislative development of the Amendment. Except for the first version, this order was kept to the end. Also luck, may have added more clarification here because had the two parts of the Amendment been at this order from the beginning then it could be argued that it was left like this unnoticed. But changing that order shows intentional effort suggesting attention. Although, is it entirely out of the question for people like those that it was not luck but they intentionally done that?)