Supreme Court rules on second amendment

WASHINGTON (Rooters agency) – “It’s not our fault,” the Supreme Court said today in its majority ruling. “We didn’t write the Constitution; we just tell you what its authors would have written if they had lived for another 220 years without changing their ideas about anything.”

The Court’s decision, declaring the precise meaning of the Constitution’s second amendment guarantee of “the right to bear arms,” had been widely expected, resulting in a doubling of the price of weapons industry shares in the weeks before the decision.

The Constitution says “arms” and not much else, the Court ruled, so there is no Constitutional basis for the Congress or state legislatures to restrict the type of arms that citizens might legitimately carry. It therefore overturned the conviction of Wy Knott, the guru of the Montana Born Again Armageddians, who had been tried and sentenced under state law for amassing poison gas, biological weapons, and tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at the sect’s rural stronghold, “Failsafe.”

The Court unexpectedly went further by rejecting the “unjustified limitations” in the argument filed in a friend of the court brief by Rerun J. Davis, the Democratic candidate for President of the Soon to Be Republic of Texas, which stated that “mentally stable, law-abiding citizens” should have the right to carry pistols openly, “especially if they are hanging sexily from the hip, as in all those great Hollywood movies.”

“The second amendment says nothing about sanity or criminality,” the justices stated in response to Davis’ brief. “For that matter, it says nothing about age. We see no reason why a mentally deranged bank-robbing two-year-old should be deprived of any weapon of any type, assuming that she or he has the money to purchase them.”

The Court went on to point out that it had already ruled that money is the same thing as free speech, so if you bought something with your money and it happened to be something that could kill a few hundred million or a few billion people, well, it might be possible to pass a Constitutionally acceptable law against using those items in particular situations, but such a law could not restrict the right to “bear” or keep the arms in one’s possessions.

“The Constitution makes it clear,” the judgment concluded, “that the State should rely on its ability to prosecute malefactors who choose to use weapons of mass destruction to destroy masses rather than for lawful purposes, such as public displays. The mere possession of such weapons is Constitutionally protected.

“Now please stop bothering us with questions like this, especially at a time when we are busy getting quotations on survival shelters.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.