Gary, list

Out of curiosity, if it was meant for a “federally-authorized” collective 
fighting force, why did it need to be included as an amendment among the Bill 
of Rights? Surely no such amendment should be needed to protect the existence 
of the National Guard, and it’s hard to see why anyone voting for its inclusion 
would have thought so at the time.

— Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 22, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> These arguments are clear and obvious to all but certain political leaders 
> and their legal supporters. I am glad to see them understood as pragmaticist. 
> There is also an argument against violence per se which relates in my view to 
> a distinction between binary conflict and triadic accommodation -- based on 
> continuity and evolutionary love. It seems to me that these matters deserve a 
> wide hearing and should command the attention of the global community of 
> pragmaticists. Philosophy, in general, has been deficient in dealing with the 
> fundamental issues of survival.
> 
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> List,
>> 
>> The conclusion of the Peircean linguist Michael Shapiro's blog post of 2014 
>> on the Second Amendment. First, the Amendment.
>> 
>>  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 
>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 
>> 
>> "The word militia of the first clause governs—is hierarchically 
>> superordinate to—the phrase the right of the people to keep and bear arms. 
>> The framers of the Constitution had the grammatical option to invert the two 
>> clauses but did not. The element order speaks for itself, rendering militia 
>> the pragmatistic scope (i. e., in the Peircean sense of the philosophical 
>> doctrine of pragmatism) under which right to keep and bear arms is 
>> restricted. " Michael Shapiro  
>> 
>> His complete argumentation is, of course, longer; for which see his blog.  
>> http://languagelore.net Included in Shapiro's post was this:
>> 
>> From Dennis Baron, “Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second 
>> Amendment” 
>> (www.english.illinois.edu/-people/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf):
>> 
>>             “In our amicus brief in the Heller case we attempted to 
>> demonstrate,
>>             • that the Second Amendment must be read in its entirety, and 
>> that its initial absolute functions as a subordinate adverbial that 
>> establishes a cause-and-effect connection with the amendment’s main clause; 
>> connection with the amendment’s main clause;
>>             • that the vast preponderance of examples show that the phrase 
>> bear arms refers specifically to carrying weapons in the context of a 
>> well-regulated militia;
>>             • that the word militia itself refers to a federally-authorized, 
>> collective fighting force, drawn only from the subgroup of citizens eligible 
>> for service in such a body;
>>             • and that as the linguistic evidence makes clear, the militia 
>> clause is inextricably bound to the right to bear arms clause. 18th-century 
>> readers, grammarians, and lexicographers understood the Second Amendment in 
>> this way, and it is how linguists have understood it as well.”
>> 
>> Professor Joseph Dauben of the CUNY Graduate Center commented on Shapiro's 
>> blog post in an email today: "It's clear from what you say that the 
>> amendment means "the people" collectively, in their joint defense, not every 
>> NRA member out there who may on his own want to keep a weapon handy, whether 
>> there is a militia anywhere in sight or not." 
>> 
>> I should note that this post is meant only to demonstrate one way in which 
>> Peircean thought is being effectively employed in consideration of 
>> contemporary issues.
>> 
>> Best, 
>> 
>> Gary R
>> 
>> 
>> Gary Richmond
>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>> Communication Studies
>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>> 718 482-5690
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------
>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but 
>> to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
>> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to