If one argues that, instead of preceding execution with the purpose expressing emphasizing exclusion over execution as suggested by the preceding post, that precedence expresses total sufficiency of the purpose to lead to the execution part, then that still may not affect the main argument in that post. That is because with this view instead of controlling the right to keep and bear Arms, we start with total focus on the purpose of having a well regulated militia to begin with. So how could that express any caring about having the right to keep and bear Arms for other purposes?
By the way, designating an "execution" part here refers to the end part for its execution, when applicable, the Amendment was made. It clearly should not be taken to imply stating that the "purpose" part has no execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment