Disambiguating polysemous words
“One of the difficulties in interpreting the Second Amendment is deciding which sources to use for analysis. In part, the choice in sources depends on a scholars training and background. Lawyers and judges often focus on the amendment in one of two ways: original intent or original meaning. Both methods are focused on finding the correct legal interpretation. Original intent concentrates on the word choice, word placement, and, sometimes, drafts of the amendment as it made its way through legislation. The focus on original meaning includes a broader spectrum of primary sources to elucidate the context and understanding of those writing the amendment.”
(From Lawsonline Legal Topics
http://lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/SecondAmendment/interpreting-the-second-amendment.shtm)
But the real bottom-line in this long-standing, contentious debate seems to be the meaning of an individual, collective, or civic right.
RIGHT, noun:
Collins English Dictionary
- any claim, title, etc, that is morally just or legally granted as allowable or due to a person: I know my rights.
- anything that accords with the principles of legal or moral justice
Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary
- something that is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: the right to free speech
- a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics
aUI,
Right: jwUr = Equal-Power-Good: a Power, Equaling in value or a Good, is a right, a good, fair power claim
Ultimately, we are all concerned about and strive for what is right and good, both for the individual as well as the whole of society. There is a balance there. It is anRights are never absolute – not absolutely to protect the individual alone, at the cost of society, nor absolutely to protect the society alone, at the cost of the individual. Rights come with responsibility – the other part of the equation. So it seems we have to wonder when the individual right to life of hundreds of innocent children and citizens is continuously being “infringed” – i.e. negated – to ‘protect’ an individual’s ‘right’ or ‘Good’ to possess firearms. What Good is it then? How do the killed kids have an equal power to protect their life?
aUI,
Protect: Yd-Yr-wav = against-bad-Power-Action
Who has the ‘bad Power’ – the innocent lives or the misuse of firearms? Who needs the most protection? Who is the weakest in the equation?
Resonsibility: kwYhImU = Above-Power-answerable = answerable to a Power Above, to a superior Power
With a right, we must answer to a superior power – the value or Good of society.
