I have found that even my own judgment for how far fetched or not what I say here sounds is affected by not sufficiently incorporating the distinction above into my view and therefore I want to point it out again even though I did a version of this in post 236. The part before the second comma shouldn't be taken as necessarily the purpose for which the part after that comma was intended to serve. It could be just to test the availability of that kind of environment in order to take advantage of it for deeper purposes including those not part of that test itself. Generally, my arguing here is related to how that general environment test should be applied and has nothing to do with the deeper purposes for the part after the second comma when applicable. For example, despite my arguing here that protecting internal freedom is not the measure used for the security to which the Amendment refers, that does not stand against a theory that internal freedom is the purpose behind the part after the second comma. The same can be said about self defense and many other suggested purposes.
This big picture may itself appears far fetched at first. The kind of environment at that time strongly fits purposes like those mentioned above but that should not be the only thing taken into account here. Instead one needs to also ask himself why would they want to control future unfit environments in order to have that for their fit environment at that time? It is an environment that had been in that fit since the beginning of human existence on earth and remained so for close to a century or more after the making of this Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment