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 conclu
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 ev
List:
This is obviously a politically and emotionally charged topic at the
moment, and I want to say at the outset that I personally am not a
proponent of "gun rights" as that term is commonly used in public
discourse. However, I do believe in accurately interpreting the
Constitution, and I have
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
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 -- b
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
