If the well regulated militia was seen as "necessary" because it is the only true defense to a free state regardless of how far it is from being reasonably capable of doing that, then, aside from other things, why the corresponding part in the amendment was not expressed as:
being the security of/to/for a free state
or
being the real security of/to/for a free state
or any other form showing that oneness in target
and instead of:
being the real security of/to/for a free state
or any other form showing that oneness in target
and instead of:
"being necessary to the security of a free state"
which treats the security issue as a separate thing that can have its own degree of quality?
No comments:
Post a Comment