Linguistic idiocy meets ignorance

A so-called linguist from San Diego has written about his linguistic analysis of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not going to bother arguing about his linguistic claims; not being a linguist, even an amateur one, there's not much point. However, the core of his error is not linguistic. Instead, it's based on complete ignorance of reality. Witness:

A connection of rationale between an absolute clause and a main clause requires that the absolute be true. Imagine an offer: "Today being St. Patrick's Day, I will buy drinks for everybody." If the speaker is mistaken -- it's not March 17 -- the offer is invalid. This is relevant because the absolute clause in the Second Amendment is actually false: in terms of meaning, it is a general statement (technically a "generic" proposition) akin to "A lion is a carnivore" or "Puppies are playful." You need more than a single counterexample to prove such general statements false. (One vegetarian lion does not disprove "A lion is a carnivore.")
But if you think about it, there are, and historically have been, a great many free states whose security has not depended on a well-regulated militia, including most modern states, as well as many states from different periods of history. The authors of the Second Amendment surely believed that the absolute clause they wrote was true, but it actually wasn't, even then, because of its generality.

The core of the argument here is that if the first clause is somehow proven false, the remainder of the sentence is rendered invalid or ineffective. This doesn't really strike me as a linguistic argument at all. Obviously a sentence stating a falsehood cannot be entirely true, but that doesn't mean that the correct judicial response is to void the entire offer. Imagine the reception you would get from a bar after making the above offer and then telling the bartender that it wasn't a valid offer since you made it at 1am on March 18th instead of on St Patrick's Day itself. In the formulation used, both clauses have some weight and impact.

To properly express a binary condition, you would say "If today is St. Patrick's Day..." rather than "being". So, to begin with, I have some doubts about this linguist's ability to conduct an unbiased analysis. Especially since many linguists have analyzed the 2nd Amendment and come to very different conclusions.

Now, it's worth noting that in a specific context the author's interpertation has some validity. When trying to win an argument with an authority figure making a decision, if you can demonstrate that the decision is based on invalid assumptions, it can help in convincing the authority figure to change his mind. The idea in that case would be to go before a judge and argue that, because the reason for the decision is based on invalid data, the outcome of the decision should be changed.

However, that is much more relevant when dealing with an actual decisionmaker who has the power to change his or her mind. The 2nd Amendment is a legal construct ratified by the people, and there is a defined mechanism for making changes to it: the amendment process. The decisionmaker here is the people, not an individual judge who might take it upon himself to change the decision of the people because he believes the reasoning behind that decision invalid.

Make no mistake -- down that road lies judicial tyranny.

However, for the sake of argument, grant that perhaps -- if the first clause can be proven wrong -- then the right to keep and bear arms may be subject to some form of jeopardy. Is it actually wrong?

For the United States at the time of its founding, the statement "A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State" is inarguably true. We had obtained our free State through the use of arms in the hands of a well-regulated militia. We had no other means to keep it at the time. Since that time, we have never been without a militia, even if its regulation has been left mostly to chance. So, for the United States, there is no counterexample.

Well, that's not true. Almost no counterexample. We have one major city under direct federal control that has been without any form of militia, well-regulated or otherwise, for 32 years. We have the subject of the Heller case itself, the District of Columbia. How free is the District of Columbia?

It's citizens are subject to door-to-door "voluntary" searches by paramilitary troops. Those same troops set up barricades around neighborhoods to demand identification and a reason for travel in or out. Video cameras monitor every movement in major public areas.

Let's look at some other historical examples of places that never had, or surrendered, their militia.

Germany, under Hitler, instituted strict firearms laws that included confiscation (after a previous government had put into place a registration system). As a result those most at risk from the government's forces had no means to resist. Certainly Germany cannot be characterized as a free state.

What about England? It's safe to say that the UK has almost completely eliminated (in law at least) any right to arms that its people once had. Children are punished for refusing to pray. Adults are imprisoned for defending themselves from burglars. By any reasonable measure, England is no longer a free state. That they are not yet a totalitarian dictatorship is small comfort.

That's by modern standards. By the standards of our Founders, there may well be no free states left in the world.

Posted on 2008-07-05 18:10:46.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7397

No trackbacks have been posted so far.

No comments have been posted so far.