I take "necessary to the security of a free state" to be intended for us to understand the reason and not just to tell us a reason exist associated with it. For the later thing, in addition to answering how could that fit a constitution, it also needs one to take the stand that the framers did not see that could be taken that other way or saw it and did not care about using things like "being" to point at the status of the existence of the militia, suggesting that understanding the reason is something ready to be grasped from outside, or even limit their explanation to suggest the existence of unseen reason. As an explanation not intended for us to understand the reason, how much of a difference does it make to tell us that there is a reason related to those things from just telling us that a reason exists? Is that difference reasonably worth the risk of having that part taken to be intended to make the reason understandable? Why not just "necessary" instead of that whole part above?
Oh, forget to remind of this. If we are not supposed to understand the reason beyond that it exists and associated with the "security of a free state", does not that lead to the reason being always applicable? If so, then why would you put that in front of the part you always want to be executed? How many times has anyone seen people talk that way? Also here they did not care about the possibility of being understood that other way?
What part of the constitution suggests that group and not just one person shared choosing to act that recklessly and/or in that way far from natural behaviour?
No comments:
Post a Comment