> How so? It's not a word that would have been known to the founders, but neither is "2A".
"Orwellian" is specifically modern ideological term with a lot of specifically modern connotations (e.g. a technological surveillance state) that are misleading when talking about people from the 18th century. My sense is it's a whole lot narrower than what the founders had in mind.
On the other hand, the Second Amendment was literally written by one of the founders.
> It makes no sense to claim that when we talk about the founders, we can't legitimately use our own language but must instead use theirs.
Use anachronisms all you want, no one's stopping you. It just that by leaning on them, you're likely spout nonsense and either confuse yourself or confuse others.
Also, there's important differences between "modern language" and "anachronism."
"Orwellian" is specifically modern ideological term with a lot of specifically modern connotations (e.g. a technological surveillance state) that are misleading when talking about people from the 18th century. My sense is it's a whole lot narrower than what the founders had in mind.
On the other hand, the Second Amendment was literally written by one of the founders.
> It makes no sense to claim that when we talk about the founders, we can't legitimately use our own language but must instead use theirs.
Use anachronisms all you want, no one's stopping you. It just that by leaning on them, you're likely spout nonsense and either confuse yourself or confuse others.
Also, there's important differences between "modern language" and "anachronism."