+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?      

+255: Post 253 needs more

I noticed yesterday that post 253 may need more including being expressed better, which I intend to do.

Even though I think that we have the thing almost done now, I did not follow like I wanted on the preference I have been stating to do more by this date or around it.  However, one reason for being relaxed with this is that I noticed that I do not need to take the official separation in order to emphasize separation from the officials like I prefer to do here. There is always a mention in court opinions for when a case was argued and when a decision was made, and that sounds a good enough separation. Also, given how I have been arguing this before taking this case, I may add more within a while after the oral argument.
By the way, I am much more like that guy who was told by the judge on Law And Order when the former continued to argue "Take a yes for an answer, will you?" than being on the opposite to that, and taking less than all the votes here is something far from my satisfaction.  

+254 (second amendment interpretation 195: Burden of Proof for Generality of The Word "State" )

I argued for that, using the first comma, but  I do not need to. If the word "State" was intended to be just for the States in the union, that is just limiting the use and such a restriction does not need to come through changing what the word mean. Therefore, I do not carry the burden of arguing why the word "State" in the Amendment should be taken to include States outside the union. That is because the effect of capitalizing the word "state" would make "free State" not applicable on any State, since internal States are not externally free, and that has the same end effect as what I am arguing for. 

+253 (second amendment interpretation 194: Explaining Why Capitalization (As Indicative of Recognition) Should Be Taken That Way) )

Seeing that the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment does not apply to our time, through the Amendment itself is piece of cake if we take into account that the word "the" in " the security" can be about special value, not just type, and combine that with taking the words "free" and "security" to apply only externally on the State (yes, back to arguing for both of these two words together).For the latter purpose not only there is a significant arguing potential based on how capitalization for other container entities in the constitution also applied only externally, but I think I can also explain why, not just for this case, but also generally.

The explanation is simply that we recognize a thing by constructing it mentally according to a definition we have. In other words, the end of the recognition process thing is the same thing outside that fitted the mental definition that was applied, except that in the former the parts are isolated from the rest of the world outside because they are doing the role of defining that thing and not just there as parts of it. 

There are things that can be considered belonging to something even though they also need other things in the world to exist. Given that the end of the recognition process thing is limited to being only comprised of what define it, anything with extending existence beyond the definition elements themselves will not be internally applicable on that thing.  
Applying this on our case here for the word "State" leads to  that the statuses of being free and secure, to which the words "free" and "security" refer, are not applicable internally, because they require additional things from the world to be applicable not just the elements composing the State.  
Since those two statuses were applied on a Thing (the State), there is a separate environment for them as internal parts of that Thing. Therefore the inapplicability here is not the result of failure to make a choice were those statuses can be applicable. In other words, the entire value ranges, in the positive and negative, for these statuses exist only outside. Therefore, a State can be free and secure based on only how those statuses apply externally. 

Or we can say that those statuses are applicable internally relative to that environment but that does not make a difference on us here because there is only one fixed value for each there. 

I want here to also point out the role of the word "a" in "a free State" in making the word "free" not just selecting the type of State but also describing a status.  

+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.