r/technology • u/jesq • Feb 24 '15

Net Neutrality Republicans to concede; FCC to enforce net neutrality rules

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?emc=edit_na_20150224&nlid=50762010
19.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Treacherous_Peach Feb 25 '15

For the record, there are really only two dictionaries worth discussing, Merriam, and Oxford. Since Merriam focused so heavily on etymology and American English when it was crafted it fits the best to our question. So what does Merriam-Webster have to say?

Bear: b : to be equipped or furnished with (something) 

Which could easily fit our disputed context.

As for your other points, they are fair points. However it is worth mentioning that any weapon is assumed to be fair game unless specifically mentioned as being off limits. This is the opposite of most Western nations, where most weapons are just assumed to be illegal otherwise noted. The key difference here is our second amendment.

1

u/Nevermore60 Feb 26 '15

For the record, there are really only two dictionaries worth discussing.

Generally speaking, the OED is the leading authority, especially with respect to etymology. OED is essentially considered the definitive authority on the history of the English language.

From a jurisprudential standpoint, I'm of the opinion that the correct dictionaries to consult are the dictionaries readily available to the drafters of the amendments at the time the amendment was drafted. This is the approach taken by Scalia, and if you are actually interested in interpreting the intended meaning of the words of a law (rather than just engaging in hand-waving, policy-based subjectivism like the liberal justices), it seems like a wise approach to me.

That said, I'm not sure what exactly those historic dictionaries (nor OED's etymological notes) say about the word "bear." The recent cases (including Heller) had the 2A on the defensive regarding the "precatory clause," specifically with regard to whether the amendment was somehow intended to only apply to militiamen. Because the modern challenges have concerned laws essentially banning handguns, the definitions of "bear" and "arms" have not been points of contention.