I am wrong in my theory about suggesting that they were seeking the no connection between the militia and the free State in order to express more applicability on States. Here is the simple thing to which I should have been better prepared. If I say:
This well, being necessary to a thirsty person, it should be kept accessible
Despite the use of being there, there is no need to actually have a thirsty person when speaking, for that statement to be true.
Therefore having the militia not belonging to the free State in "being necessary to a free State" does not make a difference since "free State" here is just a place holder for any State.
However, aside from how I unnecessarily made things more complicated to say "any state", the theory related to limiting that any state generality by capitalizing the word "state" in order to better enable applying being necessary to the security of a free state as a test is not just still standing but significantly stronger today after the support mentioned in the preceding post.
No comments:
Post a Comment