You do realize the word “orgy” dates from Ancient Greece, and for much of it’s modern history referred primarily to excessive behavior rather than sexual?
So the only two options are “being civil” and “lethal force”?
The Second Amendment may protect the right to bear arms, but if you ask the question that @jborgardt asked —why the 2nd amendment was written—it is as much about the founding fathers’ suspicion of strong state governments, armed militias as a counter-balance to government, and the physical will of the people as a check on government. Since this is why the 2nd amendment was written, the use of non-lethal self-defence by the people is certainly consistent with the aim of the 2nd amendment.
And why is the Greek origin of the word relevant? I mean, in Greek it pertained to secret rites, though the English meaning has deviated from this for a long time. Also not seeing where @jsroberts (or anyone else) mentioned orgies.
It’s not, actually. The original Greek refered merely to mystic rites.
What I actually said was that the word “for much of it’s modern history referred primarily to excessive behavior rather than sexual”.
The sexual connotations were always present at one level or another, but it’s only relatively recently that they became the primary concern of the word’s usage.
In 1874, however, the year that Samuel Gompers used the word to describe the Tompkins Square Riot, the word was used differently.
When someone responds to police brutality by citing the 2nd Amendment, it is obvious they are suggested an armed response, not “non-lethal self-defece”.
No one specifically cites the “right to bear arms” as a mere demonstration of a check or balance on government. Every single Amendment is a check or balance on government, so why specifically cite the one that refers to lethal weaponry?
Why not cite the 1st Amendment preventing the government from limiting speech? Or the 3rd Amendment, refusing to quarter troops? Or the 4th Amendment, protecting individuals from unreasonable search and seizure?
So no, I don’t buy it. People don’t invoke firearms as a symbol of peaceful, lawful protection against the abuses of a government. They invoke it as a vague threat of force.
My point was that every generation seems to think that they discovered sex, and police brutality is nothing new either. The word “orgy” came up automatically when I linked to the Wikipedia article.
That’s what you said after your irrelevant lead-in about the original ancient Greek meaning. And who cares if the Greek referred to sacred or mystical rites? Either way it’s irrelevant to English usage.
It’s only in a few contexts that the primary meaning is sexual, even today. But any time you’re talking about an orgy of something, then the meaning isn’t really sexual. Nor is it when you describe things as orgiastic. I didn’t think @jsroberts was making the connection between casual sex and police violence with this quote, but I suppose it’s possible he was attempting to.
Why don’t you revisit what he said: “And you wonder why the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment.”
The reason that he would cite this instead of the first, or the third, or any other amendment is because this amendment is relatively unique in that it specifically envisions the physical will of the people as the check on government. It isn’t about limiting what the government can do to the people, or ensuring that one branch of the government checks the other branches, but in ensuring that the people are physically capable of standing up to tyrannical governments. And this is why they wrote the second amendment. The second amendment could be about protecting the right to keep boxing gloves or some other non-lethal weapons and the argument about why it was written would be just as relevant.
Of the amendments you mention, the first comes closest to preserving the power of the people, but the freedom of press protects intellectual opposition to tyrannical government, while the fourth protects physical opposition. In the context of a discussion about police brutality and self defence, it makes a lot more sense to invoke the amendment talking about preserving the physical right of the people to act against the government. In a censorship context it would make more sense to invoke the first amendment.
And if he wanted to talk about insurrection or threatening the police, he probably wouldn’t have used the word “defensible.” Just because you are allowed to act in self defence doesn’t mean you are allowed to use lethal force. It may mean you are able to use physical force against the government, which is why the second amendment was written.
I got it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
