Splitting this off from "Shall not be infringed" because although I find this worth discussing, it definitely falls outside of parameters there.

Language is where the first battleground is. Orwell basically foresaw all this and warned us. It's pretty remarkable (or maybe not) that we got the warning so many decades ago and STILL things are coming to pass.

Orwell's Newspeak is a fascinating idea, a language that gets smaller every year, eliminating the very words needed to sustain undesirable concepts.  Well, undesirable from the government's point of view. 

But that's not really what I was talking about.  Language is arbitrary, it's something that got made up.  So let's do a little test.  I'll say a word:

Dog

What came to your mind?  Was it a poodle?  A St. Bernard?  Your childhood companion Spot?  A tasty snack wrapped in a bun?  And ugly person of the opposite sex?

You see where I'm going, so let's do another:

Ball

What did you think of?  A tennis ball?  Soccer ball?  Testicle?  Dance hall full of people in elegant clothes? 

I'm willing to bet a box of .22 LR that no two people who read this will have had the same initial impression.  So let's climb the ladder of abstraction a bit:

Love.  Freedom.  Honor.  Rights.

We're getting into complex concepts now, and while we may be able to agree that both poodles and pit bulls are dogs, we may not be able to agree what constitutes honor.  And what do we have to resolve this?  A made up set of symbols we call language.  Even though those symbols have rules, the rules themselves are also arbitrary constructs, and are expressed in the same symbols.  My understanding of language is based on my upbringing, education, life experiences, etc.  So is yours.  The odds that we are EVER going to actually be talking about the same thing is pretty damned close to 0.00%.

In conversation, far less than half of the information exchanged is transmitted through words.  Paralanguage, body language, proxemics; these all combine to carry the majority of the information.  Language is almost unnecessary.  Seriously, I just came back from a month in lands where I didn't speak the language, and I was able to get my basic needs and even convey humor just fine.  A pointed finger and a smile go much farther than any words could.

So why the fuck do we put so much emphasis on this idea of the written word?  Let's take a dodgy proposition to begin with (communication), hamstring it with arbitrary symbols (language), then then strip away most of the actual information, leaving the least useful part behind for others to try and interpret (written language). 

So to say "Well, we don't understand what 'shall not be infringed' really means" is 100% correct.  We don't, and we can't.  Hell, the members of the committee who drafted those words didn't even agree on what they meant, not really.  Maybe they thought they did, but they were mistaken.* 

Discuss.  Or not.  Depends on what you think that word means


*This may, at a glance, appear to contradict my stance in my other thread.  Kudos to those who see why it doesn't.

I don't believe that there is much to interpret in the phase of "shall not be infringed" .   These words strung together so many years ago where as strong then, as they are now.  Looking at the definitions of each word straight from the modern dictionary leaves no doubt of the meanings.

From:  www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

• Definition of SHALL

verbal auxiliary
1
archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can
2
a —used to express a command or exhortation <you shall go>
b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory <it shall be unlawful to carry firearms>
3
a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future <we shall have to be ready> <we shall see>
b —used to express simple futurity <when shall we expect you>
4
—used to express determination <they shall not pass>
intransitive verb
archaic : will go <he to England shall along with you — Shakespeare>

• Definition of NOT

1
—used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
2
—used as a function word to stand for the negative of a preceding group of words <is sometimes hard to see and sometimes not>

• Definition of BE

intransitive verb
1
a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : symbolize <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10>
b : to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother>
c : to constitute the same class as
d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green>
e : to belong to the class of <the fish is a trout> —used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2
a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality : live <I think, therefore I am>
b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position <the book is on the table>
c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted —used only in infinitive form <let him be>
d : to take place : occur <the concert was last night>
e : to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus>
f archaic : belong, befall

• Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun

Shall not = never ever ever
be infringed = encroach/enchroached upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Now define when you are frustrated or encroached.

Using the dictionary's example of a patent:  If I make something that's slightly different, but similar, how do we know if it has been "infringed"?  The answer, is we have to analyze it and make a determination if it was indeed an infringement.

patent ≠ gun

apple ≠ orange

patent ≠ gun

apple ≠ orange

You apparently did not read the definition as posted by the user above, which uses the patent to give an example of infringe.

Your thinking that it has no  bearing on the legal definition of infringe is completely misguided. In the legal sense, they are absolutely the same: the term infringe is subjective and up for discussion.

You apparently did not read the definition as posted by the user above, which uses the patent to give an example of infringe.

Your thinking that it has no  bearing on the legal definition of infringe is completely misguided. In the legal sense, they are absolutely the same: the term infringe is subjective and up for discussion.

My point for this thread is that EVERY term is subjective and up for discussion, and that such discussion is likely to worsen, not clarify, the issue.