In landmark decision, Supreme Court rules that guns don't kill people

[Dennis Baron]

but see Stevens' dissent for a fairly detailed and what seems to me  
much more convincing argument supporting a militia-related  
interpretation of 2A
____________________
Dennis Baron
Professor of English and Linguistics
Department of English
University of Illinois
608 S. Wright St.
Urbana, IL 61801

office: 217-244-0568
fax: 217-333-4321

www.uiuc.edu/goto/debaron

read the Web of Language:
www.uiuc.edu/goto/weboflanguage




On Jun 28, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Slavomír Čéplö wrote:

> Why guess if we can quote. Majority opinion, p. 14:
>
> JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly
> showing that the phrase "bear arms" was most frequently
> used in the military context. [...]  Moreover, the study's collec-
> tion appears to include (who knows how many times) the
> idiomatic phrase "bear arms against," which is irrelevant.
> The amici also dismiss examples such as " 'bear arms . . .
> for the purpose of killing game' " because those uses are
> "expressly qualified."  Linguists' Brief 24. That
> analysis is faulty.  A purposive qualifying phrase that
> contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this
> side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some
> courses on Linguistics).
>
> And pp. 15-16:
>
> But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think,
> the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
> cannot add "for the purpose of killing game."  The right "to
> carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game"
> is worthy of the mad hatter.  Thus, these purposive quali-
> fying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is
> not limited to military use.
>
> Scalia is a stronzo, no doubt about it. But as much as it pains me (a
> 100% bleeding-heart-pinko-liberal-elitist-commie-treehugger) to admit
> it, there is a lot more to this decision and some of Scalia's
> arguments even make sense. Especially when it comes to his
> interpretation of the phrase "keep arms" (which protects the
> individual right) and his reference to Muscarello v United States and
> Justice Ginsburg's interpretation of the phrase "carry firearms" and
> "bear arms" ("....for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
> offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
> person") which do not imply the participation in a military
> organization.
> It could have been much easier had the Framers chosen a simpler
> wording, like, say, the one in Tennesee Constitution of 1796: "That
> the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for
> their common defence." But, alas, they didn't. And so no matter how
> much linguistic BS Justice Antonin 'Torture is not a punishment'
> Scalia spouts ("no dictionary has ever adopted that definition"), as
> someone who - unlike Scalia - believes in all individual rights and
> opposes their curtailment by the state, I have to agree with the
> spirit of that decision.
> And now excuse me, I gotta go take shower. Or ten.
>
> bulbul
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Robert Lawless
> <robert.lawless at wichita.edu> wrote:
>> Believe it when it comes from Scalia. He is one of the worse jerks  
>> in a
>> government of jerks.
>>
>> Ronald Kephart wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/28/08 1:58 AM, "Dennis Baron" <debaron at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Always ready to insult those who disagree with his
>>>   interpretations, J. Scalia called the linguistic analyses
>>>   supporting the D.C. law "unknown this side of the looking glass
>>>   (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics)" and "worthy
>>>   of the mad hatter"
>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis, Did he really say this? Do we really get this little  
>>> respect?
>>> Damn! No wonder my students don't believe me when I tell them AAVE  
>>> is a
>>> perfectly normal form of language. It's so weird that when I first  
>>> read your
>>> post I thought it was satire... Then I actually looked at the brief.
>>>
>>> As I often say: We're all doomed.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20080628/a9a129d9/attachment.htm>