Why it seems that all versions of the amendment including those through the development use "being" when stating the necessity of a militia? If it is just an artistic expression why wasn't it changed?
If it serves the same purpose as ,for example, "is" or similar things why wasn't it replaced by that even in any suggested version through the development?
Even the initial proposal which stated
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security.." did not say that "..;a well armed and well regulated militia IS the best security..".
Clearly, seeing that something gets used that much significantly more than what seem to be equivalent others pushes for thinking about the difference.
What is the difference between "being" and words like "is"?
What is the difference between "being" and words like "is"?
What "being" serves and what differentiates it from the like of "is"
is that it states directly only the existence of what is stated at the current time. It clearly does not state the continuity of what is stated. Instead , that continuity is dependent on the absence of changes. Otherwise, "being" clearly and strongly emphasizes that it does not contain any continuity in itself.
Such insitance on using "being" even more strongly suggests an intention to restricting the "necessary to the security of a free state" description to the time of making the amendment and opening the door for testing its continuity in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment