BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
 Jon- you haven't identified what this 'war' consists of. 

        For example - what does your reference to a war against science
actually mean?

        And you refer to 'the rain of abuse against university-educated
teachers'. What does this mean - and since when does a university
education guarantee or even lead to any sort of wisdom or just plain
critical thinking abilities? [And I'm a retired university

 On Fri 23/02/18 12:53 PM , Jon Awbrey sent:
 Michael, List, 
 The U.S. Supreme Court is the Interpretive Branch of the U.S.
 and the phenomenon we have witnessed since the turn of the
millennium is 
 that powerful enough special interest groups can purchase their
 interpretations of a written constitution of laws and have their
 enforced -- if they have enough money and exert their power at the
 points of leverage in the Executive and Legislative Branches.  That
is a 
 distortion of the whole idea of a democratic republic but it is one
 citizens will have to address while they still have the power to do
 So I see this issue as a symptom of a much more general dysfunction 
 of government that the mere issue of rights that may or may not be 
 guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. 
 Here is one take on the Bigger Picture I wrote out a few years back:

 The Place Where Three Wars Meet
 On 2/23/2018 4:46 AM, Michael Shapiro wrote: 
 > Dear Peirce-L subscribers, 
 > Gary Richmond was kind enough to post my recent Flash Mailing to
the subscribers 
 > of my blog,, on this site, but I'm rerposting it
here in order 
 > to give you the ful original, as follows: 
 >         Once again we who are Americans are confronted by the
atrocity of a mass 
 > shooting, this time in Parkland, Florida. Although some voices in
the media have 
 > been raised already regarding the Second Amendment, I see the sole
solution in 
 > the repeal by Congress of the Second Amendment––admittedly,
something that seems 
 > far out of reach now but may eventually be achievable under
powerful pressure 
 > from the voting public. 
 > Below (to remind you) is my blog post from 2012 that lays the
groundwork for a 
 > repeal. It should be remembered that Justice Antonin Scalia, the
 > malefactor in the Supreme Court decision, /District of Columbia v.
Heller/, 554 
 > U.S. 570(2008), which last upheld the Second Amendment, is
currently deceased 
 > and not likely to rise again! 
 > *Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment (December
24, 2012 [from 
 > The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
“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.” Gun
owners assert a right 
 > to own and use firearms on the basis of the main clause of the
amendment. In the 
 > so-called Heller case, the United States Supreme Court has
sustained their 
 > right, ignoring in 2007 the well-reasoned amicus brief filed by
 > linguists that argued that the grammar of the amendment does not
allow such an 
 > interpretation. Here is a summary (from Dennis Baron, “Guns and
Grammar: the 
 > Linguistics of the Second Amendment” 

 > ): 
 > “In our amicus brief in the Heller case we attempted to
 >               • 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; 
 >               • 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
 > 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. 
 >               18^th -century readers, grammarians, and
lexicographers understood 
 > the Second Amendment in this way, and it is how linguists have
understood it as 
 > well.” 
 > What is paramount in the correct interpretation is something Baron
et al. do not 
 > discuss, namely the order of the two clauses. The participial
first clause, even 
 > in 18^th -century English, could just as well have been placed
second, in a 
 > familiar pattern that can be seen, for instance, in a sentence
like: “There will 
 > be no swimming today at the recreation center, the pool being
closed on 
 > Mondays.” Clearly, there is a cause-and-effect relation between
the fact of no 
 > swimming and the particular day of the week, regardless of the
placement of the 
 > two clauses vis-à-vis each other, but what  is at stake here is a
form of 
 > grammatical government that is best captured by their ORDER, which
is to say 
 > their HIERARCHICAL relationship. The first clause occurs where it
does because 
 > the writer/utterer deems it to be MORE IMPORTANT than the second
 > The same obtains in the element order of the Second Amendment. The
 > /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. 
 inquiry into inquiry: [4] 
 academia: [5] 
 oeiswiki: [6] 
 isw: [7] 
 facebook page: [8] 

[2]<a href=
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to