And here's another one, more directly on topic with this thread:

It seems to me the "gun debate" confuses two very different things - whether the present gun laws are adequate, and whether the constitution excludes tougher gun laws, as if that decided the issue:

Well, you didn't like Kings,
but the King was on the throne
so you changed the Constitution
Then the Constitution said
that a slave could be owned - so you changed the Constitution.

Then you didn't like drink,
but the Constitution did -
so you changed that law,
and the drink got hid.
Then you changed your minds,
"let's have a little drink" -
so you changed the Constitution.

So you don't like guns
but the Constitution says
you can keep your guns,
'cos that's your right.
But that's OK -
the American way
is "change the Constitution."

You can change your socks when they start to smell,
you can change your ways when they lead to hell.
So when the Times They are a-Changing - well,
you can change the Constitution.