If the second amendment stated, "A citizenry well trained in arms, being necessary to the security of a free State ....", then your comparison to a "well educated electorate" would be valid. It doesn't read that way.
The second amendment designates an institution, a Militia, that needed to be well regulated in order to be effective at securing a free state. My "library" is the Militia.
"the benefit of libaries to that of a free State is rather obtuse"
No. You've already stipulated that books are necessary to the security of a free state. And if the Founding Fathers thought that books alone would secure a free state, then there'd be no use for libraries and no need to mention libraries in an amendment.
But they felt it went beyond just books. Books needed to be available to those who didn't have them, didn't see an immediate need for them or couldn't afford them. The library would contain large books that no one would have in their home. The information needed to be organized to be effective. The state needed to appoint librarians.
My analogy holds.
I concede.
Air, being necessary to live, the right of the people to breath shall not be infringed.
This does not in any way mean that air is the only thing we need to live. Nor does this mean that supporting life is the only application for air.
Shot yourself in the foot again.
If the second amendment stated, "A citizenry well trained in arms, being necessary to the security of a free State ....", then your comparison to a "well educated electorate" would be valid. It doesn't read that way.No it doesn't read that way, the point is: the well-armed citizenry is the Militia.
No. You've already stipulated that books are necessary to the security of a free state. And if the Founding Fathers thought that books alone would secure a free state, then there'd be no use for libraries and no need to mention libraries in an amendment.I did no such thing. I posited an analogy whereby it was equivocated that "a well educated electorate" being one example of something necessary for a free State, etc. bla bla bla.
In my analogy, I suppose its irrelevant, if not immaterial (but not necessarily so), how the electorate become "educated." I don't believe that's the point that is made in the second ammendment (and the analogy fails in that respect).
Some "big-shot" once said: "firearms in the hands of the hoi-polloi are a strong moral check to the powers that be."
And to parry any thrust from anybody who maint declair: "what needs are there for this fair Repbublic to entrust its security to the uneducatd, hoi-polloi rabble?
I posit the concept that perhaps the entire State militia is whiped out in a NBC event while on federal deployment. Who then, constitutionally, protects the interests of that single sovereign and seperate State (within the Union)?
Ho'ah, and en garde!
Do you understand the language of foils?