When there is a permanent feature of something then it would usually be seen or considered as part of that thing. That is why when expressing the existence of that feature as a permanent feature of a described thing then the path of expressing that through the described thing is the most prominent one.
This is how the first part of the second amendment was written:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
It was not written as this:
A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
If the evaluation leading to the believe of the necessity of the militia in that part of the second amendment was not for what existed at that time and the intention was to say that the militia is always necessary to the security of a free state then why wasn't it described as a feature of the described thing like in the lower example above?
In the lower example above we see that the description stating the necessity of the militia was directly attached to be expressed as part of the described thing (the militia). That did not happen with how the related part was stated in the second amendment. Although the second amendment started by mentioning the well regulated militia, the description stating the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state was not expressed through the described thing and was separated from it. Instead, that description was expressed through the status of existence using "being" then through that to the described thing.Why would one use that path if he wants to express the necessity of the militia as a permanent feature of the militia? Why the necessity of the militia was not expressed as part of the militia if it was considered a permanent feature?
No comments:
Post a Comment