Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Peircean linguistic view of the Second Amendment

[pragmaticist . logos]

Gary, list,

You had posted Michael’s interpretation as a Peircean interpretation of the 
second amendment and presented it as an example of effective employment of 
Peircean thought in consideration of contemporary issues. I felt there was the 
implication that the argument presented may be conclusive if it was effectively 
employed, which prompted my response. It is clear you have just explicitly 
acknowledged the issue is more complex, which is all I was hoping for. I am 
content to drop the topic, as I do not believe the Peirce list is the place for 
such a debate, and any final thoughtful response to your post is bound to only 
prolong a contentious political debate in a forum where it did not belong in 
the first place.

— Franklin

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 23, 2018, at 10:15 PM, Gary Richmond  wrote:
> 
> List, Jon S, Franklin, Michael, list,
> 
> I will not be entering this debate, one which I should have known would ensue 
> from my reposting parts of Michael Shapiro's blog post and his reposting it 
> in its entirety. So I apologize to the list for doing that as it was at least 
> very naive of me. 
> 
> In any event, I would suggest that interpreting the Constitution has 
> historically been a very difficult and contentious matter. Last year I took a 
> 10 week course on the theme of "The Constitution Today" given by the 
> Constitutional scholar, Akhil Reed Amar of the Yale Law School at The 
> Cooper-Union in NYC, and reflecting on that course and rereading some of my 
> notes, I am now beginning to find pretty much all the commentary on the 
> Second Amendment on the list problematic (no doubt whatever I'd written that 
> could be considered "commentary" as well), at very list far to simplistic. Is 
> it truly possible to "get a handle on" the Second Amendment in a paragraph or 
> two? 
> 
> First, I would recommend that anyone truly interested in this topic and who 
> has not recently studied the Constitution including the Amendments begin by 
> reading this excellent, in my opinion truly well-balanced overview of the 
> Second Amendment in Wikipedia, especially the section:
> 
> Late 20th century commentary
> 
> and the immediately following sub-topics:
> 
> Meaning of "well regulated militia"
> Meaning of "the right of the People"
> Meaning of "keep and bear arms"
> 
> (Below my signature I've reproduced the Introductory "Late 20th century 
> commentary" section which offers "three competing theoretical models for how 
> the prefatory clause should be interpreted" by Constitutional scholars, these 
> three centering on whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment 
> protects an individual or collective right.)
> 
> Be that as it may, however one interprets the Second Amendment, as an 
> American citizen I am very much concerned with the consequences of the 
> Supreme Court having fairly recently settled on the third model. In District 
> of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the court ruled that the Second Amendment 
> protects an individual's right. How this plays out in contemporary American 
> life is of considerable importance as it has important implications for 
> possible legislation (or the lack thereof) regarding so-called "gun control." 
> 
> So, my final word--on list at least--is that I tend to share the opinion of 
> yet another Constitutional scholar, President Barack Obama, who said at a 
> press conference in early Jan. 2015: 
> http://time.com/4168056/obama-gun-control-speech-transcript/
> 
> "I’ve said this over and over again,. . .I believe in the Second Amendment. . 
> . It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to 
> twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about 
> this —— I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun 
> violence consistent with the Second Amendment.
> 
> I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee 
> of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We 
> understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect 
> innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have 
> to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not 
> because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the 
> price of living in a civilized society. (Emphasis added)
> 
> And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners 
> actually agree. A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second 
> Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting 
> harm on a massive scale."
> 
> So, the Second Amendment will continue to be interpreted and legislation will 
> or will not be written in light of those interpretations. Meanwhile, 
> innocents will continue to be slaughtered while the debates goes on. 
> 
> Finally, I would like to suggest that those of us who would like to continue 
> the 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims and Mediation

[kirstima]

Thank you, Jon for bringing up your "Seven major variations..."

In it you take up with excellent clarity seven perspectives upon the 
Maxim, from the standpoint of a philospher. Mentioning year with each 
quote is very informative in respect of development of CSP's main 
interests and aims.


However, my main interests lie in contexts of various formulations. 
Those in Harward lectures have occupied my thoughts several decades. The 
problem of mediation needs that, to my mind. Perhaps not yours.


Best,

Kirsti Määttänen



Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 14.2.2018 15:40:

Kirsti, List ...

I did once collect seven major variations on the theme:

Pragmatic Maxim
Seven Ways of Looking at a Pragmatic Maxim
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/

Plus a sample of previous discussions:

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/?s=Pragmatic+Maxim

Regards,

Jon




-
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 .