Sajak Tweaks Hollywood . . . Again

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.

The Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The federal government's only Constitutional say in the matter, is in regard to its submissions to the States, of what it regards as its needs for military readiness, and on that point, the States are expected by the Constitution, to respect national defense.

Otherwise, and given that able-bodied men and women are charged with civil defense, there is some room within the common law of each State, to cause each State to enact and maintain the regulations in accordance with which, each State's militia are charged with duties to uphold in a well-regulated fashion, meaning, well trained to Arms and well disciplined.

You must be able to do your duty, in order to serve with the militia, and that includes, that you must be of both sound mind and body. Otherwise, your right to keep and bear some Arms can and may be lawfully challenged by the people of your State.

At all times, being well trained to Arms and well disciplined, includes respecting the chain of command; the militia are answerable to civilian authority, your county's duly elected leaders, and your State's Legislature and Governor of their respective States.

The purpose of the wording in the Second Amemdment, was to answer a question for both States rights advocates and federalist advocates: What are we to do, given that the people have the right to keep and bear Arms? How are we to be protected?

The answer was in the muster.

As individuals, the people who are armed, must obey the laws of their State, in their ordinary day to day living.

Yet, when mustered, they present Arms and martial power; and, they must do so lawfully within the regulations of their respective States.

By such adherence, we may expect peace, instead of lawless, armed mobs, about which, both States rights and the federalist advocates feared.

Instead, what the federal government is burdened with, is a reminder of the lawful martial power of the people, when they muster.

For such a circumstance to occur, the burdens upon the people will have been so great and for so long, that, having petitioned to their Legislatures for relief, from that due process, the authority to muster is then given to the Governor or Lt. Governor, to make it so.

Utlimately, if the federal government should be so vain, as to disrespect the rights of the people and maladminster into being, a tyrannical reign under which the people have suffered, then, the federal government shall face its replacement, by peaceful means we pray, and if not peacefully, by force, so help us God, at the hands of the very legislative bodies that wrote the federal government into being.

These Legislatures of ours, have the power to sit in convention and write what will be, of the federal government. Yet again, the burden upon the people, to have petitioned for such a change, has to be so great, as to cause a three-fourths majority of the Legislatures to make such a Continental Congress once again.

There will either be sovereignty of the people, or there will be some national power set up to dictate over us.

Peacefully, with the pen, instead of the sword, we hope and pray that we may continue to maintain the peace and our freedom under one of the greatest peace treaties every written, our Constitution.

I think we shall, as long as we honor its original intent, the words of our agreement.

First_Salute said: "The purpose of the wording in the Second Amendment, was to answer a question for both States rights advocates and federalist advocates: What are we to do, given that the people have the right to keep and bear Arms? How are we to be protected?
The answer was in the muster."

While some of what you say is true, it seems to miss the point that the right protected from infringement is an individual right to keep and bear arms. You make it sound as if the Founders had a fear of presumably law-abiding, armed people. I am unaware of any such concern.

If our Founders had considered it sufficient to directly protect the existence of well-regulated state militias, the Second Amendment could have said that. It doesn't. The security of a free state cannot be dependent entirely upon a functioning legislature. State laws are struck down regularly by the US Supreme Court. At such time as a state refuses to recognize such federal action, the arms of the people may well decide the matter.

When the Supreme Court of Florida attempted to ignore their own election laws, the Supreme Court ordered them to obey those laws. Had the Florida Supreme Court insisted on their lawlessness, it would have been for the militia of Florida to solve the problem. This would be far preferable to sending the US Army.

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.