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] A Peircean linguistic view of the Second Amendment

[Gary Richmond]

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 discussion *as such* (that is, in non-Peirce-related ways)
should probably take it off list--at least, very soon. Still, I've offered
my final on-list thought on the matter, and ohers may wish to do the same.
But *then *let's please take it off-list.

Best,

Gary R

*Late 20th century commentary*

In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over
whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective
right .The
debate centered on whether the prefatory clause ("A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State") declared the amendment’s
only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative
clause ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how
the prefatory clause should be interpreted


The first, known as the "states' rights
" or "collective 

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

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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 to agree with Franklin that the Second Amendment
neither asserts nor implies that a "well regulated Militia" is only one
that is "federally authorized."  On the contrary, it asserts that such a
Militia is "necessary to the security of a free State," and of course the
word "State" in this context refers to each of the sovereign
entities--thirteen at that time, fifty today--that are united under the
federal government.  Furthermore, the right "to keep and bear Arms" is not
limited to the members of said Militia, but is attributed to "the people,"
which again has a very specific meaning in this context; cf. the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM,  wrote:

> 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  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 
> 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/gun
>> s.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.
>>
>> 

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

[pragmaticist . logos]

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  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  
>> 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 

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

[Stephen C. Rose]

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 
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/gun
> s.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 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
>
> -
> 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 .