In addition to how that dependency very easily suggests itself because of the environment of that time, we also have the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. What could be better than having the people of a free state defend themselves? So then why that part was stated with "being" emphasizing status instead of a form that imply continuity (like "is necessary to the..")? Then it must be that the capability to fulfill what "necessary to the security of a free state" calls for was taken into account. That imply dependency on that capability because this part was stated as the reason for the arms clause.
No comments:
Post a Comment