Posted on 12/06/2004 11:58:43 AM PST by hinterlander
Whether it’s David Letterman’s lists, the Lord’s Commandments or The Bill of Rights, we seem to gravitate toward placing things in groups of ten. However, in most cases, ten can be a bit much for us to handle. Dave’s lists would be funnier if the two or three least amusing items were dropped. And, of course, many of us would go to sleep with clearer consciences if a select few of The Ten Commandments were decommissioned.
However, when it comes to The Bill of Rights, that’s where a lot of people really get selective. Liberals, in particular, seem to enjoy “cherry-picking” those first ten amendments. They like The First Amendment very much. They hate The Second. They seem to be in favor of most of them between three and eight (bail, search and seizure, trial by jury and stuff like that). I don’t think they realize nine and ten are there. If they did, I can’t imagine they would approve, given the assignment of powers away from the Federal Government and toward the States and the People.
Most folks in my business tend to focus on The First Amendment because they seem to like its provisions, particularly the notions of free speech and a free press. (They do lean toward misinterpreting the section concerning religion, in that it merely prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.) Other than crying “fire” in a crowded theater (or maybe allowing Conservative speakers on most college campuses), Liberals tend to define themselves and “absolutists” when it comes to The First Amendment. They fear the infamous “slippery slope” of censorship. That’s why pornography is protected just as staunchly as The New York Times. [Insert your own joke here.]
The Second Amendment is a different matter. There are two schools of thought from the Left. One says that, since the amendment speaks of a militia, there was no intent to allow and protect individual gun ownership. Still, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear to me.
The other school of thought is that the Founders could not possibly have foreseen the advances in weaponry nor imagined the horrible problems of drugs and gangs that have sprung up in our modern society. Therefore, we must either disregard, re-interpret or re-write the amendment to reflect the reality of the times. I have to admit that I see some merit in this argument. The days of Uzis and machine guns are a long way off from the weaponry of the 18th Century.
But, be careful, Second Amendment foes, this is where the slope gets positively greasy. Using the logic that the Founders couldn’t have foreseen changes, how could they have possibly imagined the absolute saturation of media in our lives? How could they have begun to fathom the Internet or satellite television? Could they, in their wildest dreams, have conceived of a day when the most vile pornography imaginable could be sent directly to your home desktop without your consent?
Is it time to look at The Second Amendment through 21st-Century eyes? Maybe. But maybe it’s time to look at The First Amendment, too.
----------
Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
LOL!!! Wow good stuff.
Powerful, but nothing most do not already know.
This is Pat Sajak, the goofy game show host? I had no idea...
Pat has always been an out-of-the-closet Hollywood conservative and has written many articles in the past for conservative publications.
Since it is all but impossible to own a machinegun now, and Uzis are ridiculously expensive for something that shoots the rather paltry 9mm round (especially when stacked next to the semiauto AK-47, which fires the much more effective 7.69x39 for half the cost), it would be better spend time figuring out exactly what the first half of the 2nd amendment means (hint: check the Federalist papers), rather than try to "re-interpret" various amendments for the 21st. The amendments have, for the most part, aged remarkably well, and can still apply to modern society as-is (the third is not often applied in daily life anymore). It's unpleasant that the first seems to allow porn, but last I checked, the free-speec first was aimed primarily at protecting people who were protesting the government, not pornographers.
Interesting take
Yep Pat is a pretty solid fellow...he had a late-night weekend show on FOX News for several months...I guess it didn't attract too many viewers- but I watched it a few times and was pleasantly surprised by his grounded and sane attitudes...
Wow, good stuff here.
Yes, I just realized it is 7.62x39.
We need strict Constitutional constructionists on the Supreme Court, not on game shows.
But hell, two cheers!
More good stuff from Pat Sajak.
Semper Fi
You're right, and that makes McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform so difficult to comprehend. It specifically muzzles political speech, about candidates, right before elections. You'd think that would be struck down, but it wasn't! Porn, however, is still good to go.
Dziekuje bardzo, to a great Polish-American.
And I'm pretty sure there was no problem with private citizens owning cannon with grape shot and appropriate powder in the early days of the Republic which isn't an unfair equivilant to Sajak's point.
Actually, they did foresee it.
They provided a means to AMEND the constitution. If we the people think it needs to be updated, then it will be amended if it can get support from 2/3rds of congress and 75% of the states. It's a tough hurdle, but it should be tough.
Absolutely right on regarding CFR. This is a law that steps onto the 1st amendment to the detriment of the public, and to the benefit of political parties/candidates and the media.
Any time legislation is supported by both politicians and the media it HAS to be bad for the rest of us...
FYI, When Sajac was in the army in Vietnam as his website states he was on " Armed Forces Radio and given the morning show on AFVN in Saigon where he yelled, “Good Morning, Vietnam!” for a year and a half."
"They" were geniuses in so many ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.