Seeing that the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment does not apply to our time, through the Amendment itself is piece of cake if we take into account that the word "the" in " the security" can be about special value, not just type, and combine that with taking the words "free" and "security" to apply only externally on the State (yes, back to arguing for both of these two words together).For the latter purpose not only there is a significant arguing potential based on how capitalization for other container entities in the constitution also applied only externally, but I think I can also explain why, not just for this case, but also generally.
The explanation is simply that we recognize a thing by constructing it mentally according to a definition we have. In other words, the end of the recognition process thing is the same thing outside that fitted the mental definition that was applied, except that in the former the parts are isolated from the rest of the world outside because they are doing the role of defining that thing and not just there as parts of it.
There are things that can be considered belonging to something even though they also need other things in the world to exist. Given that the end of the recognition process thing is limited to being only comprised of what define it, anything with extending existence beyond the definition elements themselves will not be internally applicable on that thing.
Applying this on our case here for the word "State" leads to that the statuses of being free and secure, to which the words "free" and "security" refer, are not applicable internally, because they require additional things from the world to be applicable not just the elements composing the State.
Since those two statuses were applied on a Thing (the State), there is a separate environment for them as internal parts of that Thing. Therefore the inapplicability here is not the result of failure to make a choice were those statuses can be applicable. In other words, the entire value ranges, in the positive and negative, for these statuses exist only outside. Therefore, a State can be free and secure based on only how those statuses apply externally.
There are things that can be considered belonging to something even though they also need other things in the world to exist. Given that the end of the recognition process thing is limited to being only comprised of what define it, anything with extending existence beyond the definition elements themselves will not be internally applicable on that thing.
Applying this on our case here for the word "State" leads to that the statuses of being free and secure, to which the words "free" and "security" refer, are not applicable internally, because they require additional things from the world to be applicable not just the elements composing the State.
Since those two statuses were applied on a Thing (the State), there is a separate environment for them as internal parts of that Thing. Therefore the inapplicability here is not the result of failure to make a choice were those statuses can be applicable. In other words, the entire value ranges, in the positive and negative, for these statuses exist only outside. Therefore, a State can be free and secure based on only how those statuses apply externally.
Or we can say that those statuses are applicable internally relative to that environment but that does not make a difference on us here because there is only one fixed value for each there.
I want here to also point out the role of the word "a" in "a free State" in making the word "free" not just selecting the type of State but also describing a status. 
No comments:
Post a Comment