Since "being" should be taken relative to the speaker's time, its effect has expired. Now the status of a militia as necessary to the security of a free State exists only on the assumption that that status would remain until we know otherwise. So, do you see the militia as necessary to the security of a free State in our time? If not, then the part before the second comma no longer makes the part after that comma applicable. Could things be simpler? Who said that we should take this different from the way we take other things in life after the assurance of a status they have expires? Because this is a constitution? If so, not only that one cannot see what supports that position but also there is what supports otherwise. Lets take a simple example of this support. How about when a constitution imply the existence before some specific time, should we continue to assume that time did not pass beyond that point no matter what the clocks count? One actual example of this could be this part in article 5 "..no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses..."
Are we still not in the year 1808? So why should things be different with the word "being" of the Second Amendment?
No comments:
Post a Comment