Some say that the Constitution is an "evolving" document and we no longer need the Second Amendment. But a lot of lives are saved because this amendment gives people the right to defend themselves, and I cannot see it ever becoming obsolete. Well done, Royce.

Good job, Royce, I agree with you. John: Good comment. Allow me to add that those who view the Constitution as an evolving document are the same people who had no trouble passing the Patriot Act and other laws abridging our constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. Wake up, Amerika!!

Thank you for writing this parody! DKTOS, so can't vote. In England, where gun control is popular, people get arrested for shooting robbers in their house. I read about an organization called "Criminal's Rights". It says that criminals should have their rights too, and that if somebody shoots them while they are trying to burglarize, that is a violation of their rights. What utter rot. If somebody was creeping around in my house, I'd shoot him whether or not it was legal.

I feel that the 2nd Amendment is our most important amendment, because its the only amendment that guarentees us our other rights...if they are taken away, we use arms to get them back

I liked the Barney Fife line best.

Leaving aside the politics (with which, nevertheless, I completely agree) this was a good parody. Nice song choice too! 555! Seems like you're on another one of your Rolls, Royce . . . (I shouldn't do that to a gun owner . . . ) Does the second amendment prohibit pun control?

Agreed with Claude Prez. DKTOS but I haven't been here for awhile and felt like voting on your parody anyway.

Thanks for the comments, to all, and YWN--you seem to be very grown up for a young person, as I've read in your comments, that you are....I like to listen to Ted Nugent on the subject of our Second Amendment rights, he's a tornado.

While I think Ted Nugent is an idiot, I found this parody to be good. The 2nd Amendment is important, but at first, I thought this parody was going to be about the stupidity of the Patriot Act....

Thanks, Royce! I've never heard of Ted Nugent.

Mac, I believe that the Patriot Act is a violation of people's privacy whether or not people are safer. I don't want Big Brother checking my every move. I don't think Bush is trying to be Big Brother, or realizing what he's doing by that is wrong, but it is. Ben Franklin said that we shouldn't give up rights for safety. What is strange is that Bush is supposed to be against bigger government, but he brought up Homeland Security and all that. Once again, I don't see him as bad-intentioned or a liar, but I don't like the Patriot Act.

Whoo boy! I gave you 5's for a well-written parody, but I'm going to be the spanner in the works of agreeable comments here. The amendment you refer to is prefaced with ' a militia being neccessary for the preservation of the state' (not the exact words, but I am too lazy to look it up) because when the BoRs was written all able-bodied men between 16 and 60 were expected to be available for militia duty and had to keep arms for that purpose. I believe the Right wing conservatives are using the 2nd Amendment in the same way the Left wIng liberals are using 'separation of church and state' in the constitution - twisting it further and further away from its original intent to their own purposes...

Merry, well I differ in my opinion, as the First and Fourth Amendments also refer to the "right of the people", and in an individual sense, not a collective state sense; and even if the Bill of Rights did not assure the right to bear arms, I think common sense does.

I had no idea Royce was a member of a well-regulated militia, for only members of such (cops, federal agents & military personnel) are guaranteed the right to bear arms by the Constitution. But, if you're really a strict constructionist, go ahead, keep your "arms." But there is no Constitutional right to possess bullets. Try to find it. And YWK: If somebody broke into your house, by the time your fear had caused your hand to shake trying to open the drawer to get your gun, never mind actually properly aiming it, you're dead. Unless you have no fear. So you gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Actually, you are lucky in one sense, because you'd never heard of Ted Nugent before.

It isn't a matter of whether or not you would be calm enough to grip a gun, Michael. It is a matter of rights. It doesn't make sense to be incriminated for killing a person who would instantly kill you without a thought. I don't know if you have heard of it or not, but it is called "Self Defense". I'd rather be arrested than dead anyway.

I gotta break with the left for just a second. I'm sure most of you realize I'm a pretty liberal guy, but seriously, I really wish that the Democrats would be less anti-gun motivated. The further they go along that route, the more they lose potential supporters. I've known a number of people that are independent or Libertarian for the sole reason that they don't like gun control laws or the proposed bans. These people actually agree with most of the Democratic party views, but they also like their guns a lot. While it is strange how so many people are obsessed with guns in this country, I think the Democrats should consider being less forceful in their anti-gun views. They'd be able to keep a lot of moderates within their membership if they did that, and moderates are the key to winning elections. Besides, I always saw the word "liberal" as believing the government should be less involved in our personal lives (at least when it comes to social issues).

After hearing MrMacPhisto's speech, I think there may be hope for the democratic party. John Kerry as well as George W. Bush believe that all law-abiding citizens should have guns. There is another democrat that believes in the right to bear arms. Give it up, you anti-gun liberals. Your own party is forming a conspiracy against you! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Now, no matter what, we will have a president that believes in gun rights, unless some loser like Ralph Nader gets elected. I don't think I thought of that. *shudders*

YWN, just keep this in mind. What's holding the Republican party back is the contradiction of supporting a "small" government, and then turning around and spending more than the Democrats. At this point, Democrats are truly for smaller government. Also, why do the Republicans like to keep the government out of their economic lives, but they then want it to bother their personal and social lives. Republicans need to get off their so-called "moral" high horses and leave the government out of the abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana issues. They actually lose a lot of supporters due to Pro-Life, anti-gay, and anti-pot stances. We can't let the Libertarians win, because they put too much faith in the perceived benevolence of corporations....

I, for one, am for smaller government, whether or not Bush is. Don't place all republicans in the same category. As for abortion, not only is it wrong to murder a baby, but it is dangerous for the mother. As for marijuana, it is an addictive drug, and messes with people's minds. As for the "anti-gay" issue, I believe it is the state's decision, unlike Bush who believes it is the federal government's decision.

The second amendment does NOT restrict gun ownership to militia. In fact, the preface to the amendment (as such) merely states the reason why the PEOPLE are given the right to keep and bear arms. Recognizing that the government may override the rights of the people (as was the case with England) the constitution quite clearly allows the people (not just those in a militia) to keep and bear arms in order to allow it to form militia movements at need (such as the minutemen). In fact, the framers of the constitution were very much AGAINST any standing military force during peacetime - preferring state militia that could be called from the ranks of the people at need. (Read the Federalist papers for more on that ideal.) Further, several more amendments in the Bill of Rights (notably the ninth and tenth) DIFFERENTIATE between the rights of the PEOPLE and the rights of the individual STATES. They are NOT the same. The second amendment applies to the rights of the PEOPLE - not the state and not the federal government. The whole purpose of that amendment is to protect the PEOPLE from the potential of a tyrannical government. It's pretty clear unless you wish to avoid actually reading the constitution (and the writings of those who framed it, debated it and adopted it).

YWN, we've discussed abortion before, and I'll just say... you have your view, I have mine. As for marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes are "addictive drugs that mess with people's minds" too. Do you wanna outlaw those as well? We're not talking about heroin or crack here, it's just pot. Look up the history of why marijuana is illegal. I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with addiction and everything to do with paper companies demonizing a cheap alternative to conventional tree sources for paper. Hemp is actually a very efficient resource....

thanks, Stray Pooch, for your input; very interesting and I learned something from your comments

Wait... How did the subject switch from gun control to marijuana so quickly? Maybe it has something to do with the people who came up with gun control were smoking joints a lot. Look, being 13, I've never had alcohol, especially not pot, and I don't know if one would be more addictive than the other. I'm not sure if cigarettes can mess with people's minds, although they are addictive and can kill you. But it seems to me that pot is something too addictive. Now could we PLEASE get to the part where I was laughing maniacally, and we were actually agreeing on something.

I just liked the parody.....!