continuing from the preceding post
Had the Second Amendment been:
Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I still would have said:
Why they did not say being necessary to the security of the person and free state, or being necessary to the defense of the person and free state, or being necessary to the security, or just being necessary or simply give no reason. Should we understand the security of a free state here to include the security of the person? How much does it fit the purpose of explaining a reason choosing such a narrow top down approach? They did not speak in general or start from the root purpose for everything, the person.
But the preventing of restricting or infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms was not even connected to the security of a free state as a purpose directly but instead through the middle layer that of "[a] well regulated militia". That fits answering fears like ours of misusing the power of arms ownership by intercepting the purpose stated in the amendment by a well regulated entity.
As much as there is organizing and following of a command chain in a group, as less as there is probability for chaos in using the arms they have. So it is not hard to unite the above potential purpose with that of seeking the competitive power the organizing and following a command chain like an official force brings to the militia I spoke about in earlier posts.
Had the Second Amendment been:
Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I still would have said:
Why they did not say being necessary to the security of the person and free state, or being necessary to the defense of the person and free state, or being necessary to the security, or just being necessary or simply give no reason. Should we understand the security of a free state here to include the security of the person? How much does it fit the purpose of explaining a reason choosing such a narrow top down approach? They did not speak in general or start from the root purpose for everything, the person.
But the preventing of restricting or infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms was not even connected to the security of a free state as a purpose directly but instead through the middle layer that of "[a] well regulated militia". That fits answering fears like ours of misusing the power of arms ownership by intercepting the purpose stated in the amendment by a well regulated entity.
As much as there is organizing and following of a command chain in a group, as less as there is probability for chaos in using the arms they have. So it is not hard to unite the above potential purpose with that of seeking the competitive power the organizing and following a command chain like an official force brings to the militia I spoke about in earlier posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment