“A well regulated Melisma, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.”
This is the second amendment to the constitution of the United Sad Lions. It was initially written in 1791 and has taken this long to be ratified by the 28 member states of the European Union (Soon to be 27!) It was drafted by an infinite number of monkeys using an infinite number of typewriters, so the probability of any similarity to any other constitutional amendment, is statistically very high, but entirely coincidental.
The ramifications of this clause, will no doubt, be debated for centuries to come. Do we have a constitutional right to keep and bare arms?
To keep arms is one thing. In most circumstances keeping arms is probably the wisest thing to do. Let’s face it, how is the lady in the picture ever going to keep people from breaking into her house? How is she going to defend herself? How is she going to pick the fluff out of her belly button? 
So, on balance, keeping arms is probably a wise move given the general level of fluff accumulations in the world today. It will certainly be less controversial than other aspects of the clause. The right to bare arms however could be a somewhat less straightforward dispute.
Should anyone be allowed to bare arms, or should that right be restricted to only those who are part of a well regulated Gregorian chant?
Common comma convention would suggest, that any phrase enclosed between two commas within a sentence, can effectively be ignored. That is clearly untrue as the previous sentence proves. Despite this however, in the case of the second amendment above, this could be read as follows.
(In a)’A well regulated melisma, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.’ which again does not make much sense, especially if one ignores the parentheses. I am sure the monkeys had not intended this, but that is what happens when you provide animals with typing equipment.
So the debate goes on. Do we want to see this? :-
Certainly this is enough to scare any potential intruders away, but it is not the sort of thing that young children should be exposed to. How can we be sure that these arms are sufficiently exercised as to not be a danger to the public in general. (Or for that matter the person baring them!)
On the other hand, (or arm) the picture below is just d**ned intimidating. :-
Nobody should be allowed to bare arms this big and powerful. It will just encourage others to get even bigger arms and then we would be in a free-for-all.
From the evidence above I think it is quite clear that the framing monkeys were only expecting the baring of arms during controlled choral engagements. They certainly did not envisage the display of arms in public places by ordinary civilians.
Should other similar constitutional amendments be re-written to drag them screaming into the 21st century?