Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. For your consideration, here to my right, I show you a nut. Obvious nut case, just look at him. And on my left, this fine example of a gun. [Handles gun.] This gun is semi-automatic — which simply means it fires bullets faster than anyone can count. Excellent, as guns go!
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask, is there anyone here in the audience who would say, hand this gun, this semi-automatic weapon, to the nut on my right? No? Please, anyone, don’t be shy. [Pause.] I don’t see any hands… Oh, come on, you all have arms! [Twitters from audience.] Raise your arms and show your hands, please.
OK, still no hands. So… if you don’t want nuts like this to have guns, let me ask: why aren’t you doing anything about it? Like, changing our laws — I’m just saying. The government could require you to take a psychological exam before you buy a gun. Together, we could agree to do this. Or is the prospect that someone (some liberal do-gooder no doubt) might “evaluate” you too scary a proposition for you? Which would be worse — to let nuts have guns or subject yourself to a mental evaluation? You would rather let people die by the hand of a nut with a gun as “the price we all pay for freedom”, is that it?
OK, I hear some folks in the audience saying, “Second Amendment! Second Amendment!” Yes, our Constitution says (and our Supreme Court affirms) that the people’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So I ask you, Ladies and Gentlemen: what is more important? For nuts to have guns? Or for the Second Amendment to stand as is, as interpreted?
On my right is this nut, on my left this gun, and in front of me, the Second Amendment. [Cheers from some of the audience.] Please remember that the United States Constitution itself spells out a method by which we can amend it. Neither the Second Amendment or the Constitution is cast in stone, like a gravestone — we can change it if we want. We have done it before: alcohol sales were prohibited by amendment and restored by amendment. It is up to us, patriotic people that we are, and those we elect to office, to do our best to keep nuts and guns apart. We are not powerless — we can propose an amendment to the Second Amendment. If thirty-eight state legislatures were to ratify such an amendment, it would become part of the United States Constitution, as much a part of it as the First, Second, Fourteenth or any other of our twenty-seven Amendments.
Here is one possible wording for it:
The Second Amendment shall not be construed to deny Congress the power to regulate the possession and use of lethal weapons, where such regulation serves to ensure the safety and general welfare of the People as set forth in the Preamble to this Constitution.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please, please. Let me finish. Please. [Some in the audience walk out of the room, noisily. One man stands up and aims.]
The Paul McCartney website has a store full of Paul McShoppingCart items, including the women’s tank-top shown here. (The stem of the flower is Paul’s signature and the petals are guitar picks.) It goes for $40. I asked my wife, would she like one, and she replied, “Not unless he comes along with it and sings ‘I Want To Hold Your Hand.'”
Be the next to comment
Read other posts in News and Comment
Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. For your consideration, here to my right, I show you a nut. Obvious nut case, just look at him. And on my left, this fine example of a gun. [Handles gun.] This gun is semi-automatic — which simply means it fires bullets faster than anyone can count. Excellent, as guns go!
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask, is there anyone here in the audience who would say, hand this gun, this semi-automatic weapon, to the nut on my right? No? Please, anyone, don’t be shy. [Pause.] I don’t see any hands… Oh, come on, you all have arms! [Twitters from audience.] Raise your arms and show your hands, please.
OK, still no hands. So… if you don’t want nuts like this to have guns, let me ask: why aren’t you doing anything about it? Like, changing our laws — I’m just saying. The government could require you to take a psychological exam before you buy a gun. Together, we could agree to do this. Or is the prospect that someone (some liberal do-gooder no doubt) might “evaluate” you too scary a proposition for you? Which would be worse — to let nuts have guns or subject yourself to a mental evaluation? You would rather let people die by the hand of a nut with a gun as “the price we all pay for freedom”, is that it?
OK, I hear some folks in the audience saying, “Second Amendment! Second Amendment!” Yes, our Constitution says (and our Supreme Court affirms) that the people’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So I ask you, Ladies and Gentlemen: what is more important? For nuts to have guns? Or for the Second Amendment to stand as is, as interpreted?
On my right is this nut, on my left this gun, and in front of me, the Second Amendment. [Cheers from some of the audience.] Please remember that the United States Constitution itself spells out a method by which we can amend it. Neither the Second Amendment or the Constitution is cast in stone, like a gravestone — we can change it if we want. We have done it before: alcohol sales were prohibited by amendment and restored by amendment. It is up to us, patriotic people that we are, and those we elect to office, to do our best to keep nuts and guns apart. We are not powerless — we can propose an amendment to the Second Amendment. If thirty-eight state legislatures were to ratify such an amendment, it would become part of the United States Constitution, as much a part of it as the First, Second, Fourteenth or any other of our twenty-seven Amendments.
Here is one possible wording for it:
The Second Amendment shall not be construed to deny Congress the power to regulate the possession and use of lethal weapons, where such regulation serves to ensure the safety and general welfare of the People as set forth in the Preamble to this Constitution.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please, please. Let me finish. Please. [Some in the audience walk out of the room, noisily. One man stands up and aims.]