It seems to me that support for my interpretation of the " being necessary for the security of free state" in the second amendment as a condition rather than just a general description for any "well regulated militia" is the missing link that many of my writings that depended on that part need. This is the only way I can make sense of the difference between what I wrote and the court opinion (mentioned in the previous post) I am reading.
[(Added 11/17/2013) On a second thought, while more support is certinly better, that link could be less missing than I described because that clause should be understood as a condition if not for the current militia then at least for what is the target for it to be]
[(Added 11/17/2013) On a second thought, while more support is certinly better, that link could be less missing than I described because that clause should be understood as a condition if not for the current militia then at least for what is the target for it to be]
No comments:
Post a Comment