I may expand more on this argument later but I want to make this version of it first. I am interested to see how the opposing side answers it.
First the text of the second amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Those who think that the second amendment still lead to same application result on our time need to do one of the two options below:
1- Sufficiently prove that " being necessary to the security of a free State" part was meant as a fact to be taken always as true instead of being intended to support itself as a reference to the status of things in the world.
In other words how can they prove that part was intended to directly create a rule for the reader to follow and not passively communicating the status of the need for militia from the outer world and referring it to the judgment and reasoning of that reader? Why is it taken as a forced fact instead of an invitation to look at the world and apply the correct judgement? After all, that part belonged to the reasoning section of the amendment.
There are many situations where a speaker intends only to reference what is outside and use it as a judge or measurement instead of himself imposing it on the listener . For example if you tell a friend who cant afford a plane ticket and wants to travel to a city thousands of miles away:
A car, being your best option, I think you should travel using your car.
Are you in this case suggesting to your friend to refuse a plane ticket even if given to him at a price he can easily afford? Clearly NO. By stating that a car being the best option you were simply referring to the status of things in the outside world and using it as the measurement or the judge to determine the correct path without any intention to claim it as a fact that stands on its own without support from the outside world. In other words, it was a statement intended to be dependant on support from the outside world to be correct.
It is not unusual for the word "being" to be used in similar statements to replace a subjective representation of the speaker with a pass through representation for the outside world by the speaker. In fact, examples of this kind seems to be much easier to find than the other alternative.
2-Sufficiently convince with reasoning that the militia is at the level of necessity meant in that amendment for our time for the purpose mentioned (the security of a free State).
Going back to #1, notice how the interpretation mentioned seems stronger and fits much better in the whole picture.
A possible argument that "being necessary to the security of a free State" should be understood to have been intended to be subjectively imposed as fact regardless of its conformity with the outside world because it should always apply since it is part of the constitution which was not written for a limited time is wrong because:
First, the general applicability of the constitution cannot supersedes the intention of those who made that part of the constitution in question if they intended to limit it .
Second, this seems to be a crude way to take the general applicability of the constitution since the amendment would still have a general applicability with this interpretation. General applicability does not imply always leading to same result. With this interpretation the second amendment would still apply every time except that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" would act like a conditional factor that may lead to different end results.
[(Added 12/11/2013) Based on the possibility that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" references the reader to the outside world to make the required judgment instead of supplying that reader with that judgment as a fact, the text of the second amendment applicable to our time is equivalent to:
(When/if/as long as ) 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.
How then those who made the second amendment did not use (when,if..) instead of "being"?
Because, adding more direct emphasizing on their current time does not harm the general applicability of the statement. In addition that direct emphasizing on their current time using the "being" word served as an indirect indicator that they are not claiming that a militia may be "necessary to the security of a free State" outside the time of that "being". In other words the statement still apply to all time either directly as in the time of that "being" or indirectly through contrast by omission although it may lead to different results.
Notice that in the earlier part I missed to add to the argument needed to be proved by the opposing side in #1 that the timing intended by the intention it claims should have been permanent or at least sufficient to include our time. Otherwise, one could assume, while still not satisfying the opposing argument requirement in #1, that "being necessary to the security of a free State" was intended to be imposed as a fact not dependent on judging the outside world for that time while the use of the word "being" also signify dependency on the outside world for the future implementation. It would be as if they were saying:
The future will depend on seeing and judging the outside world but we saw and judged our current world and because of that we establish it as a fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free State in our/current time]
A possible argument that "being necessary to the security of a free State" should be understood to have been intended to be subjectively imposed as fact regardless of its conformity with the outside world because it should always apply since it is part of the constitution which was not written for a limited time is wrong because:
First, the general applicability of the constitution cannot supersedes the intention of those who made that part of the constitution in question if they intended to limit it .
Second, this seems to be a crude way to take the general applicability of the constitution since the amendment would still have a general applicability with this interpretation. General applicability does not imply always leading to same result. With this interpretation the second amendment would still apply every time except that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" would act like a conditional factor that may lead to different end results.
[(Added 12/11/2013) Based on the possibility that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" references the reader to the outside world to make the required judgment instead of supplying that reader with that judgment as a fact, the text of the second amendment applicable to our time is equivalent to:
(When/if/as long as ) 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.
How then those who made the second amendment did not use (when,if..) instead of "being"?
Because, adding more direct emphasizing on their current time does not harm the general applicability of the statement. In addition that direct emphasizing on their current time using the "being" word served as an indirect indicator that they are not claiming that a militia may be "necessary to the security of a free State" outside the time of that "being". In other words the statement still apply to all time either directly as in the time of that "being" or indirectly through contrast by omission although it may lead to different results.
Notice that in the earlier part I missed to add to the argument needed to be proved by the opposing side in #1 that the timing intended by the intention it claims should have been permanent or at least sufficient to include our time. Otherwise, one could assume, while still not satisfying the opposing argument requirement in #1, that "being necessary to the security of a free State" was intended to be imposed as a fact not dependent on judging the outside world for that time while the use of the word "being" also signify dependency on the outside world for the future implementation. It would be as if they were saying:
The future will depend on seeing and judging the outside world but we saw and judged our current world and because of that we establish it as a fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free State in our/current time]
No comments:
Post a Comment