Back to proving that dependency from the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part. Can anyone answer to the self what gives it the right to understand "being" there as being intended for continuity instead of what its direct meaning shows in being about a status? Seeing the dependency here is not far from realizing that direct meaning. Because if "necessary to the security of a free state" was merely about the fact that the people of a free state are the most trusted to defend that state and did not include dependency on the militia to take that role, then it is an always true fact and does not need to be pointed out as a status.
No comments:
Post a Comment