Sajak Tweaks Hollywood . . . Again
by Pat Sajak
Whether itÂ’s David LettermanÂ’s lists, the LordÂ’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. DaveÂ’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 couldnÂ’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 itÂ’s time to look at The First Amendment, too.
Mr. Sajak is the host of "Wheel of Fortune" and PatSajak.com.
