After writing the post below I thought about something that could help more in fighting this denial to the importance of "being" in the second amendment and make it easier to see its role. I thought about the issue of continuity with "being" and how to deal with the burden of proof there. I gave myself some examples trying to imagine how I would naturally act and found that I may act as if there is a continuity unless I know otherwise. So does that mean I was wrong to say that "being" has no continuity? Isn't "being" about the status of things?
Here is the important thing. Unlike when speaking about the object itself, continuity with "being" does not come from the speaker. Instead, it comes from simply the absence of things telling you that the thing which was spoken about its status with "being" has changed from that status. Therefore with the second amendment the judgement of whether a militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state" is dependent entirely on what we see in our environment because the makers of the amendment did not tell us that continuity but just the status of the militia and we assumed it would continue its status until we know otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment