Somebody could say:
You keep pointing out how the difference in power between official and public forces was mainly about being organized and having a chain of commands. Doesn't that add to the preserving of the militia being a purpose?
The answer to this question is that closeness in power at that time also adds to the empowerment argument by as much as it opens the door to make things equal not just close. However, I am not going to counter it with this and other things but instead use it to adjust my position for even more probability of being correct and to remove possible confusion of different implications behind preserving the militia being a purpose. I do that by expanding my position from empowerment which imply having sufficient power being the purpose, to, dependency on having sufficient power. Preserving the militia being a purpose would lead to the arms clause of the amendment being applicable on our time only if the purpose for preserving the militia lacked enough dependence on having sufficient/comparable power to fit our time.
No comments:
Post a Comment