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 <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 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 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 right" model, held > that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it > recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, > citizens "have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a > collective right to have the National Guard". Advocates of collective rights > models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal > government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual > right to possess firearms. Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that > interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the "collective right" model. > However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit's opinion United States v. Emerson > in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an > individual right to bear arms.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 second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model",held that the > Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this > individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of > a functioning, organized state militia/ Some scholars have argued that the > "sophisticated collective rights model" is, in fact, the functional > equivalent of the "collective rights model." Other commentators have observed > that prior to Emerson, five circuit courts specifically endorsed the > "sophisticated collective right model" > > The third, known as the "standard model", held that the Second Amendment > recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms. > Supporters of this model argued that "although the first clause may describe > a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and > therefore the amendment confers an individual right 'of the people' to keep > and bear arms".Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the > "absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment's preamble does > not render it a 'dead letter' because the preamble is a 'philosophical > declaration' safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple 'civic > purposes' for which the Amendment was enacted". > > Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered > essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. These interpretations held > that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era and that > this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right > to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty. However, under the > standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying > to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive > example – one of many reasons for the amendment. This interpretation is > consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified > individual right. > > The question of a collective right versus an individual right was > progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning > with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with > the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and > McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any > remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an > individual right. Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional > amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely > used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century. > > (See also the following sections.) > > > > Meaning of "well regulated militia" > > Meaning of "the right of the People" > > Meaning of "keep and bear arms" > > > > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > 718 482-5690 > >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> 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, <pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> 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 <stever...@gmail.com> 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 <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/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 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 .
