HEADLINE: Man With Assault Rifle Gunned Down

AP Wire

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 barely 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 in Israel had used to kill his mother, father, wife and one of his sons before his very eyes.

Smith’s wife, almost hysterical, confirmed that her husband routinely hunted small rodents with the assault weapon. 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 32-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 could not help his actions, that the assault weapon “scared me to death.”

This tragic shooting brings to the forefront the issue of assault weapons- not as to whether they ought to be legal, but whether it ought to be legal to kill someone who is carrying one if he is not a police officer or a National Guardsman. Another concern is that, it being so simple, in some states, to legally acquire assault rifles and high grade automatic weapons, how does one 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 2nd Amendment. Mr. Litsky should be prosecuted… uh… we think! We’re not sure,” the spokesman affirmed. “We’ll have to think about it.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Diddlepoop, head of the antigun proponents, actually agreed with Andrew Poopdiddle, the NRA Spokesman. He stated, in an interview with CNN, that “We’re not sure either; we, too, have to think about it.”

The hope is that Misters Poopdiddle and Diddlepoop can come to some sort of agreement someday on the issues of gun laws and special concessions for assault rifles. In fact, earlier this week, 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 owner must pass a competency test and swear he will use only water in the pistol.

And so, the great battle raged! The NRA arguing that if all those students were allowed to carry assault weapons, that if it were made easier to acquire them, they could have gunned down that “sick bastard” at Virginia Tech. At least give them a fighting chance- some sort of automatic weapons!! The antigun proponents countered that gun battles would ensue, resulting in thousands of deaths.

The NRA called on President Botch, who agreed that we dare not trample on the 2nd Amendment, “which reads ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’” The antigun lobbyist argued “didn’t you forget the part about ‘a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,’ part of the Amendment?”

“Nobody knows what that means!” argued President Botch.

“You certainly don’t,” mumbled the antigun lobbyist under his breath.

“This is one of the most important rights that people have!” admonished the President, “and I don’t think its my place to interfere.”

So, still the battle raged on! The first reporter, David Ben Gregorian wanted to ask the President “then why are you trying to create a remedial Christian state, censor and intimidate the Press (1st Amendment); why all those illegal 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 4years, 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 stealing 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 and stupid Congress doesn’t want these powers, they can’t go to the President- they go “to the people.” (10th Amendment)]

Geez, we’ve only got one Amendment in the Bill of Rights that you haven’t trampled on: Number 3… obviously you’ve never heard of it.”

Instead, he took a deep breath and asked a more pertinent question: “Assuming, Mr. Botch, that every citizen is entitled to an assault weapon, what about a “nuclear weapon?” Aren’t they entitled to them under your 2nd Amendment? And, yes, if that is indeed the case, how can we deny them to Iran or North Korea?”

The President then left the room exclaiming “that’s all for today, folks!” As he left, he smiled to himself, thinking “that idiot Ben Gregorian can’t even pronounce nucular!”

Allen Finkelstein, D.O.