**This fictional headline was originally printed by me in 2007, but it shows that very little has changed in the truly pathetic gun debate in this country. Add to this the bloodlust of various state legislatures in crafting "stand your ground" statutes while claiming that we are returning to our roots: as primitive apemen.
Headline: Man with Assault Rifle Gunned Down
April 19, 2007
Washington: Jim Smith, owner of an assault rifle, was gunned down by Meyer Litsky, a 64-year-old furniture maker, this past Monday. Litsky, apprehended by police immediately after the shooting, claimed he had just killed a terrorist. The shooter, when picked up by police, was having chest pain, palpitations, and could hardly speak. He had just shot Smith, a physician, in the chest, claiming that the assault rifle that Smith carried was the same weapon that terrorists had used to kill his mother, father, his wife and one of his sons before his own eyes.
Smith's wife, almost hysterical, confirmed that her husband routinely used the assault weapon to hunt small rodents. She stated that he was on his way to a nearby wooded area "in the country" to pursue his sport.
Litsky used a registered handgun, a .38-caliber pistol (with a legal concealed-weapon permit), which he had hurriedly removed from his car. After questioning Mr. Litsky at the hospital emergency room, the police were forced to let him go without charges. Litsky, who carries the gun "for fear of my life," having witnessed six mass murders by various terrorist groups, could say only that he was very sorry but that he could not help himself, that the man carrying an assault weapon in public "scared me to death."
The tragic shooting brings to the forefront the issue of assault weapons, not as to whether they ought to be legal, but whether or not it should be legal to kill someone who is carrying one in public if he is not a police officer or a military person. Another concern is that it being so simple in some states to legally acquire assault weapons and high-grade semi-automatic weapons, how does one even know that the carrier is really a policeman or an officer of the people and not really a disguised terrorist?
The NRA, late today, issued an angry statement, asking:" Is it now going to be legal to kill anyone carrying an assault weapon? This is a gross violation of civil rights, a violation of the Second Amendment! Mr. Litsky should be prosecuted!... uh ... we think... Actually, we're not sure," the spokesman affirmed. "We'll have to think about it." Meanwhile, Congressman Diddlepoop, head of the anti-gun proponents, actually agreed with Andrew Poopdiddle, the NRA spokesman. He stated in an interview with CNN that "We're not sure either. We too will have to think about it."
The hope is that Misters Poopdiddle and Diddlepoop can come to some kind of an agreement someday on the issues of gun laws and special concessions for assault rifles. In fact, earlier this week, in a sign of good faith, Mr. Diddlepoop relented on his proposal to ban water pistols, conceding that some brands ought to be allowed, but that they must be licensed and the owners must pass a competency test and swear they will use only water in the pistol. But very soon the great battle raged again, the NRA stating that if all the students had been issued assault weapons, they could have gunned down that "sick bastard" at Virginia Tech. "At least give them a fighting chance, some sort of semiautomatic weapons," they argued. Anti-gun proponents countered that if everyone on campus were armed, it could result in hundreds or even thousands of deaths!
The NRA called on President Botch, who agreed that "we dare not trample on the Second Amendment, which reads: 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'" The anti-gun lobbyist argued "didn't you forget about the first part of the amendment about 'a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state?'" "I didn't know there was a first part." the president replied and added: "Besides, nobody knows what that means anyway."
"You certainly don't," mumbled the anti-gun proponent under his breath.
"This is the most important right that people have! It was more important to the founding fathers than any of the other amendments," the president admonished, "and i don't think it's my place to interfere."
And so the battle raged on! The first reporter, David Ben Gregorian, wanted to ask President Botch "then why are you trying to create a remedial Christian state, censor and intimidate the press (1st Amendment), why all the search and seizures, bugging phones and searching bank accounts without a warrant (4th Amendment), delaying and denying trials of American citizens while withholding counsel for 4 years, not to mention a little torture (5th, 6th,7th, 8th, and 9th Amendments down the tubes, and how about the War Powers and Patriot Acts usurping those powers 'not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states [that] are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.'" (In other words, if an illiterate or stupid congress doesn't want these powers, they don't go to the president, they go to the people. 10th Amendment.) "Geez," he thought, "the only one of the original amendments you haven't trampled on is the 3rd. You've probably never heard of it."
Instead, Ben Gregorian took a deep breath and asked a more pertinent question: "Assuming, Mr. Botch, that every citizen is entitled to an assault weapon, what about 'nuclear weapons?' Aren't they entitled to them under your Second Amendment? And, if that is the case, how can we deny them to Iran or North Korea?"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).