July 4th is only a week away and what better present to give the country on its birthday than a rewritten Constitution! Thanks to the Supreme Court, we now have a new and improved 2nd Amendment -- ensuring that America's gun culture will flourish well into the next millennium. As you know, the Supremes finally decided that the 2nd Amendment's "right of the People to keep and bear arms" language applies to everyone -- not to just State run militias. In other words, the Supreme Court concluded -- all by itself -- that the founding fathers must have drafted that provision because they were concerned that law abiding citizens needed firearms to protect themselves against burglars and street thugs. I guess there was a lot of that going around in 1787.
Don't worry about the fact that the Second Amendment begins with a very bold reference to a "[w]ell regulated militia." That doesn't mean anything. The drafters were obviously drunk on mead when they wrote that one. There was no absolutely no concern that the Federal Government might usurp the states' powers after first stripping the states of all of their viable firepower. That kind of stuff never crossed anyone's mind. No -- the states and the Federal Government were all part of one big happy family. Hell, the only reason they named the country: "The United States of America" was because it sounded kinda cool. There was no tension between the big and small governments. No need to protect the smaller governments from the one big giant government. It wasn't like we were once ruled by a King or anything.
So it makes perfect sense that the Supreme Court held that "the right to bear arms" really meant "the right to accumulate as many handguns as possible, to carry them around, to even have them lying around the house without trigger locks." Read the words yourself:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Of course, it doesn't say: "A well regulated Militia ... [and] the right of the People to bear arms, shall not be infringed." It also doesn't say, "a well regulated Militia ... [or] the right .. to bear arms, shall not be infringed. But these are minor details. The founding fathers were simply horrible proofreaders. Ok -- so they left out an "and" here and an "or" there. Big deal. They had a lot on their plates.
In fact, when you look at the other "rights" in the Bill of Rights, you can see the same omissions. Just look at the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you see any "ands" or "ors" in that one? You do? Oops. Well, I guess that's not a good example. They were probably so tired after they drafted the First Amendment that they messed up all the other ones. Let's look at the Fourth Amendment. That came after the Second Amendment.
In fact, when you look at the other "rights" in the Bill of Rights, you can see the same omissions. Just look at the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you see any "ands" or "ors" in that one? You do? Oops. Well, I guess that's not a good example. They were probably so tired after they drafted the First Amendment that they messed up all the other ones. Let's look at the Fourth Amendment. That came after the Second Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Ok. Well I guess there are a few "ands" and one "or" in that one, too. So what? If you take out the first "and," the point is exactly the same. Or is it? Let's see:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [and] no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Hmmm. Looks to me like the Fourth Amendment (sans the "and") is now nothing more than a go-by for issuing a warrant. Plus, without the "and," one could easily conclude that all searches and seizures would be deemed unreasonable unless pursuant to a warrant. Is that true? If so, we need to reverse approximately a million and half cases which permitted certain warrantless searches.
You see, an "and" may seem pretty minor, but it can have a major effect. Let's look at the 27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
There's no "and" between "law" and "varying the compensation." Well, what if Justice Scalia sticks on in there? Now, we have:
"No law, [and] varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
Interesting. Originally, we were saying that Congress can only give itself a pay raise if the raise takes effect after an election. Now, we're saying that "no law" can take effect until after an election. You think Congress is slow now -- just wait until Justice Scalia gets a hold of the 27th Amendment.
I guess the important point is that the five Justices were thinking exactly as the founding fathers thought. I'm sure they did some research and found that, 221 years ago, the "right...to bear arms" was necessary because of all the concerns about crime. I'm sure there were all kinds of bank holdups and muggings and stuff. I'll bet there were a lot of drive-by shootings and massacres on college campuses, too.
Back in 1787, I'm sure there were just as many fourteen year olds running around with handguns blowing peoples' heads off for no reason. I'm also almost positive that there were just as many psychos walking into high schools, post offices, McDonald's restaurants, Amish schoolhouses, University classrooms, day care centers, and cafeterias toting automatic weapons and firing wildly away -- motivated only by the desire to snuff out as many innocent lives as possible. Yeah, just like now -- they had all those problems back then! Remember the Boston massacre? I haven't looked it up but I'll bet it had something to do with some crazy strolling into a Boston Chicken and spraying the joint with musket balls. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Or maybe the founding fathers were concerned about attacks from Native Americans? You see, American Indians had a lot of clout back them and probably lobbied real hard to take away the pioneers' firearms. While the various tribes were scalping the settlers with their tomahawks, the poor white man couldn't catch a break in this town! So Congress decided to let him go buy a 9 mm.
Interesting. Originally, we were saying that Congress can only give itself a pay raise if the raise takes effect after an election. Now, we're saying that "no law" can take effect until after an election. You think Congress is slow now -- just wait until Justice Scalia gets a hold of the 27th Amendment.
I guess the important point is that the five Justices were thinking exactly as the founding fathers thought. I'm sure they did some research and found that, 221 years ago, the "right...to bear arms" was necessary because of all the concerns about crime. I'm sure there were all kinds of bank holdups and muggings and stuff. I'll bet there were a lot of drive-by shootings and massacres on college campuses, too.
Back in 1787, I'm sure there were just as many fourteen year olds running around with handguns blowing peoples' heads off for no reason. I'm also almost positive that there were just as many psychos walking into high schools, post offices, McDonald's restaurants, Amish schoolhouses, University classrooms, day care centers, and cafeterias toting automatic weapons and firing wildly away -- motivated only by the desire to snuff out as many innocent lives as possible. Yeah, just like now -- they had all those problems back then! Remember the Boston massacre? I haven't looked it up but I'll bet it had something to do with some crazy strolling into a Boston Chicken and spraying the joint with musket balls. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Or maybe the founding fathers were concerned about attacks from Native Americans? You see, American Indians had a lot of clout back them and probably lobbied real hard to take away the pioneers' firearms. While the various tribes were scalping the settlers with their tomahawks, the poor white man couldn't catch a break in this town! So Congress decided to let him go buy a 9 mm.
Well, whatever the reason, we now have a brand spanking new, rewritten Constitution. And as a result, we should go out and buy as many guns as possible. Only then will we get a handle on crime. Those crooks will be shaking in their boots when, after pulling a gun on us in the street, we turn around Clint Eastwood style and blow them away with our .357 magnums.
Now, normally, the Justices don't give interviews, but Imbecile Magazine managed to nab an exclusive with Justice Scalia on this one. Here's a snippet:
I.M.: So, Justice Scalia, you've really done it this time. I hope you're happy. J.S.: You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the f*** do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK.
I.M.: Aren't you worried that people will buy more guns -- that they will get in a situation where they panic and start shooting?
J.S.: Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot!
I.M.: Any concern that you only got 5 votes for this decision?
J.S.: I know what you're thinking. "Did we get five votes or only four?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the Supreme Court, the most powerful judicial body in the world, and we can decide presidential elections and practically everything else, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
I.M.: No, I don't feel lucky. Not at all, Justice Scalia.
J.S.: Let me tell you something, kid. You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.
I.M.: Oh, is that so?
J.S.: You wanna f*** with me? Okay. You wanna play rough? Okay. Say hello to my little friend!
Bang! Bang! Bang!
Don't worry. I'm sure those were probably just firecrackers. Happy Independence Day!
No comments:
Post a Comment