+252: Case Or No Case

Although I do not prefer to see it happen, even if the current Second Amendment case goes away, I do not intend to lower my effort to do things within the time I suggested for my self. 

+251 (second amendment interpretation 193: A Little Thing on The Go)

Related to the preceding post, I would like to know why is the word "free" in "free State" is seen to apply also internally but "presentment or indictment" in "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", in the Fifth Amendment, is not? Or is it that the current Federal indictment process is unconstitutional for not requiring indictment from every person on a Grand Jury?

This could be just a tiny sample of the attacking fronts that are ready to be opened on the opposing side to that the word "free" in "free State" does not apply internally on the State.

+250 (second amendment interpretation 192: Preview of Potential Additional Argument for The Word "free"

Time is flying and I have to better direct my effort to other things here which I began to do in the last couple of days before yesterday when I drove my self back to this part. However, within the time allocated to this part I would like to also look if when other words in the constitution, like, for example, "Congress" or "Senate" or "Grand Jury" applied only wholly, not internally, there are always reasons for that other than their capitalization like I am arguing here for the capitalization of the word "state", because I doubt that.

By the way, it maybe confusing, but I am assigning these arguments to the word "free" even though they are more directly related to the word "State" based on my end purpose.      

+249 (second amendment interpretation 191: Better Argument for The Word "free"-2)

At least for the purpose of discussions like this, it seems better to adjust the argument in the preceding post saying:

Since the same combination of things in the outer world can be constructed mentally differently, capitalization  serves the purpose of indicating selecting a specific mental construction for an outside existence. The concept of a state as one entity is a mental construction that was selected for the related things outside through the recognition indicated by the capitalization of the word "state", to represent that corresponding group of elements in the outer world, we call "state", as one whole thing.
Although, I may not need to explain how things work in the language in order to say that recognition implies that what is recognized exists as a thing, while its absence does not. Therefore a State should be treated only as a whole because it is one thing, while a state needs to be treated also partly because it is not recognized as a thing.

More clarifications are needed here which I intend to make in a future post.

+248 (second amendment interpretation 190: Better Argument for The Word "free")

If people here were to take this issue like they take things related to science, my participation in the discussion here would have probably reflected on my thinking similar to how participation in a marathon but finishing it a year later would reflect on my athletic ability. Anyway, better late than never. It turned out that there is even a shorter and more general path than the one I used in post 244 to argue that the word "free" should apply on the state as a whole not internally. I may need to come later to elaborate further (Like I pointed out earlier, I shouldn't be considered done arguing here until the end of the amicus curie filing period as I calculated it to be at August 13 or around that) but I do not want to postpone this core. 

The word "free" should apply on the state only as a whole because capitalizing the word"state" implies recognition that connects the parts of the state to have the state as an existing thing. Without that capitalization we would only have the parts of the state required to recognize the existence of the state as a thing but without the recognition connecting those parts and therefore the word "free" can also apply internally. This applies everywhere in this language. Anything, and more obviously anything comprised of parts, does not exist as a thing without the recognition connecting those parts and I think that this the core meaning behind capitalization. In other words, in languages with capitalization like this, the recognition of a thing, itself is seen as a thing that is required to exist for the former to exist. In other words once more, these languages do not see mental existence of a thing as following world existence of what comprise that same thing. 

    

+247: Comment Section for Better Access Equality

This is another reminder that the comment section is open here especially for those with opposing views on the Second Amendment to argue back directly or post links to their arguments and share any special accessibility writing here had acquired to those with the decision making responsibility. After posting this I intend to check again the capability to post comments anonymously here.

+246: Recognizing When Elaboration is Needed

I just want to say that how much I appear sure about an argument I make regarding something related to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, that should not be taken as a measure for how probable that argument to be the final one regarding that thing. For example, I am currently working on better expressing the issue in the main part of the recent post about how the word "free" should be taken, because it still remains highly elusive. 

I do not want the balance of good and bad related to the access I have for submitting my argument in parts, to offset to the negative side because it leads to engaging others with highly competing responsibilities with the partial presentations I make. Balancing the self with how much thinking time to spend on partial arguments is not easy. However, the suggestion I previously made of having  August 13 or around that as the time by which I intend to finish my argument may provide some help here.  

   

+245 (second amendment interpretation 189: The Additional Part Below Is Wrong)

I got confused and made that added part in the post below suggesting that capitalization of the word "state" was for locality of reference.  That word is not capitalized to restrict it to the local environment. It is the local environment that restricts how that word should be taken. I did not intend to treat the first comma as none essential for its related role in countering that anyway.

By the way, I also realize that I often throw in commas writing in a relax mode and not anywhere near the thinking I put when taking the commas in the constitution.    

+244 (second amendment interpretation 188: The Argument for The Word "free" )

It turned out that arguing that the effect of the word "State" on the word "free" requires us to take the latter like I described in the core post (post 236), I have been looking in another galaxy for what is closer than being in an adjacent room. Capitalizing the word "state" imply acknowledging the existence of that state as a state in the world. This acknowledgement imply taking the interface of that state to the world as representing the whole state. In other words, the inside of a State is dissolved in that representation as one indivisible thing. This leaves freedom at the granularity level for the whole state in the world as the only way the word "free" can be applicable here.

Despite that I had already thought about how a country may acquire a statehood when I wondered about why the word "country" was replaced with the word "state" to begin with, I still did all the roaming I did here and beyond before seeing this much more direct and absolute proof.  
Since the capitalization of the word "state" implies such potential, that does not fit with general use of this capitalization just for the purpose of locality of reference.  Therefore the first comma in the Amendment may not be needed to make the case that the word "State" in the Amendment applies also on States outside this union, unless that word is taken as applicable to no State. That is because the word "free" here, as pointed out above, implies excluding internal States in the union for not being free at the granularity level of a state in the world. However, I still want to point out that the other side of this same coin can be used to answer my question to the supporters of the state right theory, in the post below. 
Because it is easy to slip here, I want to remind again that I am discussing the applicability related to the part before the second comma, not the part after if the former activates the latter.  

+243 (second amendment interpretation 187: Question for the believers in the state right theory )

Although I do not do, or at least do much less relative to others, trying to contain the thinking of the makers of the constitution instead of trying to carefully follow what they said, I still wonder if the writer of this Article had also considered the counter way things fit. The original constitution looks more focused on creating the system while the Amendments look more focused on protecting the individual in that system. In addition to how their being Amendments and not continuation of the original suggests seeking a different purpose, the time  between the making of those two things adds more strength to that suggestion.

Anyway, reading there, it occurred to me that while I am trying to make the best argument I can for the capitalization of the word "state", why don't the believers in the state right theory at least start with explaining all those not capitalized "state" words in the development history, unlike the way that word was used to refer to the local states throughout the constitution before that point if that was the purpose? Actually, I could not find any other version in the development history with the word " state" capitalized except the last one which we have, and,  like I pointed out previously, I followed the link in the wiki Second Amendment article for the only other version written there with the word "state" capitalized and found it not capitalized in the source. And if it is to be argued back that the first comma made it hard to decide how to refer to the local states, I would ask about what made that comma that necessary to compete with the main purpose here, to begin with?  
Nevertheless, having myself lately slip in thinking again with regard to this distinction, I emphasis again that what concerns me is the direct implementation purpose for the part before the second comma. Otherwise, I don't see the state right theory as more unfit as a motive for the part after the second comma than, for example, self defense as a motive.   
         

+243

I thought I had the thoughts for post 236 ready, long before I published them, thinking I can do that whenever I want, until I wanted to do that and got surprised how much more development they needed. Yet, the frequency of posting thereafter below without going back to collect myself, suggests that I did not really accept that lesson.     

+242 (second amendment interpretation 186: General environment Testing vs. Deeper Purposes )

I have found that even my own judgment for how far fetched or not what I say here sounds is affected by not sufficiently  incorporating the distinction above into my view and therefore I want to point it out again even though I did a version of this in post 236. The part before the second comma shouldn't be taken as necessarily the purpose for which the part after that comma was intended to serve. It could be just to test the availability of that kind of environment in order to take advantage of it for deeper purposes including those not part of that test itself. Generally, my arguing here is related to how that general environment test should be applied and has nothing to do with the deeper purposes for the part after the second comma when applicable. For example, despite my arguing here that protecting internal freedom is not the measure used for the security to which the Amendment refers, that does not stand against a theory that internal freedom is the purpose behind the part after the second comma. The same can be said about self defense and many other suggested purposes.

This big picture may itself appears far fetched at first. The kind of environment at that time strongly fits purposes like those mentioned above but that should not be the only thing taken into account here. Instead one needs to also ask himself why would they want to control future unfit environments in order to have that for their fit environment at that time? It is an environment that had been in that fit since the beginning of human existence on earth and remained so for close to a century or more after the making of this Amendment. 

  

+241 (second amendment interpretation 185: Precedence of "security" and "freedom" )

Both arguments for the words "security" and "free" to be applied at the external level only, which I made below, are dependents on taking the capitalization of the word "state" for the granularity level of those earlier words. For the purpose of arguing the latter, in addition to collecting points and increasing the probability, there seems to be also a direct path. That path is based simply on the precedence of the words "security" and "free". Within stating the purpose, we were directed toward the State after reaching the statuses of being secure and free. The corresponding part of the Amendment could have been written in a way making us reach the State first if the purpose includes internal freedom and security, Like:

being necessary to a State to have the security and freedom.  
Maybe I confused things by jumping directly to how things should be taken (granularity level). Technically what I am trying to prove here is that the word "free" in "a free State" describes a State not a state. In other words, to the extent the the word "free" here describes the state, that description comes through describing the State, not the other way around. This the standard of proof to which I am holding myself here.       

+240 (second amendment interpretation 184: On Development History )

I wasn't planning on starting a talk about the development history of the Amendment like this, but I wrote some of this part in the preceding post then preferred to make things more organized.

Having that development history of the Amendment, it maybe of special importance here to point out how it seems natural to see that protecting internal freedom and security extends to protecting the external freedom and security but not vice versa. Therefore, the word "state" could have been used without capitalization in those earlier versions of the Amendment also for having external freedom and security as the main test in that general applicability part, but with taking the whole package as the path for that external freedom and security. 

In addition, I once before suggested that that development history or part of it could have been intentionally made like this to help the future people. While that may have sounded as far fetched probability at the time, I now imagine having that potential objection that the makers of the Amendment just wrote the word "state" capitalized like it was written everywhere else in the constitution before making this Amendment without paying attention to the consequence of combining that with the first comma, if it were not for those not capitalized "state" words in the earlier versions.    

+239 (second amendment interpretation 183: Alternative Argument for "free" and "security" )

Instead of the argument made in post 236 and the one below, for why the words "free" and "security" should be taken in relation to the world not internally, one could simply say this:

The relationship between two words in a description status could be that of a two way path. For example, the word moving in moving car and moving boat is not only describing the words car and boat but also getting itself described back differently. Moving in a car imply being on land while moving in a boat imply being on water. In other words, a different aspect of the word moving was selected depending on what it describes. Similarly, here, both "free" and "security" can be about internal or external freedom and security. Capitalizing the word "state" suggests selecting the external aspect of those two words.

+238 (second amendment interpretation 182: About "security" in Post 236)

This could be already noticed, but there is probably no need for the special argument I made for the word "security" to apply within the same environment like the word "free", because the capitalization of the word "state" affects the former the same way it affects the latter. Taking the same examples given there but replacing president with, for example, new president, and writer with, for example, column writer, do not seem to change a thing because of affecting multiple things in each example. (However, while being here I noticed, with regard to the original point of invoking the related environment by what something is called with, that when saying he is a young writer, the word young would more probably be taken as being young age wise not young in the world of writing. But that seems to be the result of an internal local choice blocking the containing one (the word "writer"). That is because of how common is the use of other choices, like the word "novice", to express being young in relation to a field. In any case, I intend to think of more examples and elaborate on that if needed.)  

+237

Related to the preceding post, unless something changes, I still have until August 13 or around that of amicus curiae filing time for case 18-280 but I wanted to put that core first. Although it may lead to same time calculation either way with relation to the respondent's position, my position here is focused merely on interpreting the general applicability part of the Second Amendment. 

+236 (second amendment interpretation 181: That Missed Direct Path)

I want to start here with saying that this is being posted within the time allowed by the rules of the Supreme Court to file an amicus curie brief for case 18-280.

I do not know how the judges of that court decide many other issues if the overwhelming signs here are still not enough to make them do that on this issue. In any case, when I sensed a demand for more argument despite taking the case above, this time I focused more on going directly to specifically what should be done when applying the amendment instead of arguing the aim. It turned out that in addition to the overwhelming number of signs and the big picture here, there is a path that tells what should be done at a much higher specific level. All that is needed for this path is included in the part between the first and second commas, with special dependence on the words "the" and "State". 

The Word "State"

Unless things were preset for a different direction, capitalizing any word implies recognizing it externally according to the meaning of that word. Therefore "free State" refers to the state that is free at that level of granularity in existence. This combination takes the meaning of "security" to be protecting being free at that level.

This applies to states like this country or France or India and even those with internal dictatorships as long as they are free in their external existence. But it is not applicable to internal states like the states in this union individually, even if considered as States in the world because they are not free externally. The constitution itself stated that these states here cannot enter into agreement on their own with a foreign State. Of course, we are talking here about the domain of a general applicability test for the Amendment which has nothing to do with the application domain of its part after the second comma if this test gets passed.

No special treatment being given here. There is so much dependency on taking things this way everywhere that it is very hard to imagine the world running without it. For example if somebody says this president is not carrying out his responsibility correctly why should that be taken as a reference to his official duties, not, for example, his duty to his family? Or if I say he is a good writer about a person, the listener would understand it to mean that the person to whom I referred is good at writing something, even if both the listener and I know that person is much better at something else, like for example being an athlete? The word "writer" does not refer to the action of writing but to the person doing that action and it is the same person being both an athlete and a writer so why referring to him as good writer should be taken as if I said he is good at writing or he writes good? 

The reason behind all that is that at least when what we call something with is clearly a matter of choice that choice also invokes its environment for the intended meaning. Here we clearly have the word "state" chosen to be capitalized. This brought its environment to direct the meaning of the word "free" preceding it. This combination, in turn, brought the environment to direct the meaning of the word "security" because, again, a choice was made to refer to only free States instead of any State. 

But shouldn't being in a construction mode of something give priority to the local meaning and therefore "State" here should be taken as a reference to the States in the union? Despite that the answer to the former is an affirmative one the latter does not follow here and that could be where the first comma shines the most for its effect. That first comma causes temporally escaping the building mode to the outside and that takes the word "State" back to its general meaning instead of the one it acquired because of speaking locally. 

The Word "the"

The Amendment refers to "the security of a free State" not just ''security of a free State". The definition provided by the word "the" for the word "security", preceded in effect the description provided by "a free State" for that same word. Therefore that description applies to "the security" not just "security". This implies that taking the definition provided by the word "the" for the security to which the Amendment refers as only possible for distinguishing a type of things and not also a specific selection within that type itself, is wrong.

Just simply adding a comma immediately after the word "the" would have reversed the precedence in effect described above allowing "the security" to apply on any security related to "a free State" and the definition provided by the word "the" would then serves as selecting from only the different kind of things related to "a free State". But even if there were no such alternative, arguing against that precedence in effect on the ground that it is the result of the position of the words, needs to explain why should we see that the form of expression was given priority over the intended meaning when constructing the Amendment.

Also, since there is no comma preceding the word "the", the security to which the Amendment refers is for the one applicable to the whole world at the State level, not to the environment of any State in the world separately.

And because of having the part of the Amendment before the second comma exists separately and not in a dissolved way as in saying

Because a well regulated Militia being/Is necessary to the security of a free State, the right....

it cannot be argued that the reference to security there, is only for the security at that time.

+235 (second amendment interpretation 180: Was this taken seriously to begin with?)

continued from the preceding post 
Or is it that I am a fool here for jumping directly to a deeper psychological level instead of first pointing out the conscious  level of taking this amendment like a toy? Otherwise how could one explain never seeing anybody taking into account that the part between the first two commas maybe not just establishing but establishing at the present and questioning for the future at the same time? Were a use like in saying The pizza being hot, better eat it now to question the existence of the being hot status to future times not common enough to justify bringing such possibility? How could one take a behaviour at this shallow level as a serious effort? This probably needed to be put on top of what I wrote in the preceding post letting the latter refers only to the subsequent levels of dealing with the interpretation of this amendment. 

+234 (second amendment interpretation 179: Pointing Out The Level of Abnormal Behaviour Here)

In case some are in confusion about this, let me state it clearly myself that not even in his dreams one can find in other fields of intellectual thinking, not even in a field as young as computer programming,  something as huge as what I have been arguing for the Second Amendment here, left open for him anywhere close to this. But look at what the psychological factor does. My desire to see what I am doing here as anywhere equivalent to even a little fraction of itself there intellectually is much bigger than any desire I could have to point out abnormal behaviour here, if there is any reasonable probability to see things otherwise but unfortunately there isn't.  

+233 (second amendment interpretation 178: ",shall" in the Fourth Amendment)

Although it may seem at first glance contrary to the use of the comma preceding "shall" in the second amendment, having the comma before "shall" in the search and seizure amendment is also needed for similar reason. The absence of this comma would have opened the door for or forced seeing "against unreasonable searches and seizures" as merely describing the end purpose not the execution path. That would mean there is nothing saying that violating that right of being secure against those kinds of unreasonable searches and seizures may only come from unreasonable searches and seizures not other things especially reasonable searches and seizures because of how close they are to unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, like how a bodyguard may seek keeping whom he protects not only from getting harmed but from being in the risk of getting harmed to begin with, the direct or implementation purpose of the amendment could be taken as avoiding the potential of those unreasonable searches and seizures not just those unreasonable searches and seizures themselves.

+232 (second amendment interpretation 177: Improving the example below)

The example in the preceding post may not sound as compelling as it could have because generally the occasion one may imagine for saying such statement may be a big help in guessing the intention. But we can adjust that by bringing the similarity closer with the making of a constitution. We can imagine that statement said at the planing for the creation of  that company. 

+231 (second amendment interpretation 176: The Comma Preceding The Word "shall")

The comma preceding the word "shall" is needed for taking the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part the conditional way I am arguing but does not make a difference in execution if that part was intended as true forever. That is because without it the part after the second comma would have strongly suggested itself as one whole action that continues to be applicable even when the militia being necessary to the security of a free State is no longer true. But this comma prevents that by giving "shall not be infringed" its own execution time. 

An example here is if the decision makers of a company say

The company, being on tight budget, big projects shall not be taken  that would open itself to be taken as a general policy decision even if the budget becomes sufficient for big projects later, more than if there were a comma before "shall" which helps seeing the purpose as while the tight budget situation exists only. 

+230 (second amendment interpretation 175: Proceeding On The Meaning)

Since "being" should be taken relative to the speaker's time, its effect has expired. Now the status of a militia as necessary to the security of a free State exists only on the assumption that that status would remain until we know otherwise. So, do you see the militia as necessary to the security of a free State in our time? If not, then the part before the second comma no longer makes the part after that comma applicable. Could things be simpler? Who said that we should take this different from the way we take other things in life after the assurance of a status they have expires? Because this is a constitution? If so, not only that one cannot see what supports that position but also there is what supports otherwise. Lets take a simple example of this support. How about when a constitution imply the existence before some specific time, should we continue to assume that time did not pass beyond that point no matter what the clocks count? One actual example of this could be this part in article 5 "..no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses..."   

Are we still not in the year 1808? So why should things be different with the word "being" of the Second Amendment?      

+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.