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/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 .
