I just noticed that I do not need to be restricted in proving the existence of that dependency on the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part but instead can take the whole amendment for that with the explanation of empowerment being the purpose behind the amendment. On the other hand the court's theory of preserving the militia built on recognizing the history of the effect of disarming the public by rulers on preserving the militia. So one could simply ask: How did that effect on the militia become noticeable other than by the absence of showing resistance to those rulers? This imply dependence on that a militia should be capable of doing that.
No comments:
Post a Comment