I do not intend to stop the effort to provide the technical answer I see, at least not while I see that strong potential there, even if everybody were satisfied with how the big picture proves the interpretation I am arguing for the amendment. But I also do not want my effort for better technical answer to support that it is normal or reasonable to see things insufficient to support the interpretation I am arguing for, without technical answer. That is because the big picture supports my position to the level that looking for the technical argument feels like looking for the technical answer that somebody under a rock and screaming "help" is calling for help and not telling people to help each other. Similar to how such screaming does not fit that latter interpretation, the opposing interpretation for the Second Amendment does not fit why it was made that way.
In fact even before I noticed the path of this more technical argument, I cant remember ever tolerating in my mind even for a minuet imagining that the opposing interpretation is correct. It always felt unsuitable like trying to fit a bigger box inside a smaller one. And this is coming from somebody who have leaned enough from the past to be careful about how humble his thinking compared to those in the intellectual fields and how it is often like butting a rock trying to add a new thing to what those other minds had passed on, let alone correcting them. Yet, all that never made me feel an inch closer to accepting that the way this amendment is taken here could be what it was intended for, and even just seeing that others could truly believe in it is unreachable to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment