June 28, 2010

Alito: Heller "points unmistakably" to the conclusion that the Second Amendment applies to state and local government through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In this morning's opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, Justice Alito writes for a majority, explaining the doctrine of incorporation with useful clarity. The question to be answered is: "whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty... or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is 'deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" (page 19 of the opinion).

Applying that standard:
Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.... (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family”.... Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Justice Alito — at page 42 — rejects the 4 factors that Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, argues should affect incorporation:
First, “there is no popular consensus” that the right is fundamental; second, the right does not protect minorities or persons neglected by those holding political power; third, incorporation of the Second Amendment right would “amount to a significant incursion on a traditional and important area of state concern, altering the constitutional relationship between the States and the Federal Government” and preventing local variations; and fourth, determining the scope of the Second Amendment right in cases involving state and local laws will force judges to answer difficult empirical questions regarding matters that are outside their area of expertise. Even if we believed that these factors were relevant to the incorporation inquiry, none of these factors undermines the case for incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

147 comments:

A.W. said...

The founders of the 14th Amendment often said to the effect that the right to vote was almost as important as the right to bear arms.

Forget any test the SC formulates. This passes original intent.

John said...

Can Breyer be more out of touch and ignorant? Gun rights do not protect minorities and those holding power? Really?

A.W. said...

btw, it looks like a big chunk of sabarnes oxley just went down, too.

rdkraus said...

How do these hypocrits sleep at night? I'm a guy who thinks the Supreme Court just "made up" the whole incorporation doctrine, but for crying out loud, if it's going to apply to all the liberals' favorite Bill of Rights rights, then it has to apply to the ones they hate too.

downtownlad said...

Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Christopher said...

Hallelujah!

Breyer:

second,the right does not protect minorities or persons neglected by those holding political power

How amazing is that. I mean just for starters, gun control laws made their first big impact when white southerners disarmed freed slaves.

How is it even possible for a Supreme Court justice to write that sentence?

Sofa King said...

Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

And why not? Certainly handguns would not have been unknown to them.

K said...

Why wouldn't they have handguns in mind? Handguns, although primitive by our standards, did exist at the time of our founding.

A.W. said...

DTL

> Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Arms is arms.

But by your logic, the internet and television can be censored because they weren't on the framers' minds, either. maybe that specific technology wasn't, btu the fact is the framers wrote "the right to bear arms" and not "the right to carry MUSKETS." if the founders wanted to limit the right solely to thost arms available at the time, there are ways they could have done it.

Original Mike said...

"How is it even possible for a Supreme Court justice to write that sentence?"

Dismaying, isn't it?

mc said...

The framers had "handguns" which they duelled to death with, in addition to he basic kit which a person of militia status might be expected to bring to the green to depose tyranny.

A war does not erupt over soldiers marching towards Concord and Lexington to seize your gear and then you decide after the struggle that the government be the only entity entitled to possess such kit.

Tell the old lady in the Chicago ghetto she is safer trying to remember the numbers 911 when her door kicks in...

Salamandyr said...

The only shameful thing is that 4 Justices still colluded to deny people the very right to defend their lives.

Fred4Pres said...

It is a good decision.

Note the split. Elections have consequences.

PatHMV said...

How does the law not "neglect minorities or persons neglected by those holding political power"? In that one factor, Justice Breyer shows how liberal jurists have completely transformed the idea of "minority" from a political idea to a principle which enshrines group identity.

Clearly gun owners, in Chicago at least, were "neglected by those holding political power." Had those promoting gun rights been in the majority in Chicago, then the ordinance would never have been passed. By definition, then, gun-owners are a "minority" interest in that area.

Bruce Hayden said...

Gun rights do not protect minorities and those holding power? Really?

Condi Rice was asked at some point about her view on the 2nd Amdt. Her response included telling about her father and other members of their black community arming themselves to protect themselves from the racial violence of the deep south that she grew up in.

And, indeed, disarming Blacks in the South was one of the places where states tried to control gun for much of the 100 years after the Civil War.

Fred4Pres said...

The wise Latina proves otherwise.

Good to know NYC residents will soon be able to defend themselves again. Bloomberg will have to limit his nannyism to cooking oil.

Oso Negro said...

I especially liked this phrase:

"citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

It comes close to suggesting that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

sunsong said...

Wonderful news! This increases my hope that the healthcare mandate will be struck down.

Bruce Hayden said...

I haven't dug through the opinion yet, since I need to digest Bilski for work first. But so far, it appears that the 2nd Amdt. is incorporated, but it is unclear how. Four Justices found incorporation through Due Process and rejected Privileges and Immunities, while Justice Thomas found incorporation through just that route.

traditionalguy said...

Precis of opinion: Alito uses the Dirty Harry line of reasoning, "Go ahead punk. Make my day." He like to fight so much that he says, "Read my lips, no gun confiscation laws on my watch."

TRO said...

"Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution."

You do realize they had pistols way back then, right? And that arms means more than just a long-rifle musket?

Sure you do.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Tell the old lady in the Chicago ghetto she is safer trying to remember the numbers 911 when her door kicks in...

Her handgun will be a huge help during a mistaken identity no-knock raid from the cops, I bet.

I wonder if the well-ordered militias are celebrating this amazing instance of judicial activism today.

Calypso Facto said...

dtl said: "Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution."

They had not only handguns in mind, but also muskets and the full arsenal of the "modern" military of the time.

Fred4Pres said...

Bloomberg will have to limit his state nannyism to salt content and high fructose corn syrup.

John Richardson said...

I expected that Otis McDonald et al would win today as they rightly should.

I just wish that Justice Thomas's concurring opinion was the majority opinion. I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment incorporated on the Privileges and Immunities Clause than on Due Process.

Original Mike said...

"Her handgun will be a huge help during a mistaken identity no-knock raid from the cops, I bet."

I'm surprised to see you defending these no-knock raids, Monty.

Bruce Hayden said...

I'm surprised to see you defending these no-knock raids, Monty.

Why? Liberal statists are just fine with the use, and therefore, the inevitably misuse of government power.

Historically, socialist states, whether they be communist, fascist, etc. have had to seize guns before they can impose their totalitarian will. It that includes no-knock raids, then fine with them.

Fred4Pres said...

Today’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago reaffirms that indeed gun rights apply to citizens, thus limiting the ability of the several States to restrict gun ownership. A 5-4 majority decides the case in favor of the Second Amendment. The plurality (Alito, writing, with Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy, joining) believe it to be another fundamental right incorporated through the Due Process clause (like, say, abortion, contraception and gay marriage). The lone voice crying in the wilderness, however, Justice Thomas, openly and forcefully critiques the plurality for going down this path. He would incorporate the right through the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. His solitary opinion is a MUST READ.

Montagne Montaigne said...

I'm not defending no-knock raids, idiot. I bring it up because the idea that people in cities need handguns for self-defense is made a mockery of when the greatest threat to their safety is usually the police itself. And being able to legally possess a handgun in your home is no help at all when it's the cops at your door.

Joe said...

Because EVERYONE knows, No Knock Raids a Demon Spawn....

I do think it is safe to say, that the Founders included hand guns, though they really referred to other weapons, too. As a check on the tyrannous nature of governments.

Joe said...

…is made a mockery of when the greatest threat to their safety is usually the police itself.

I hate to be mean, but you ARE an idiot. The greatest threat to “their” safety is the CRIMINALS!! Who do you think is busy killing young Black Men in the Inner City, the Police? No, it’s OTHER YOUNG BLACK MEN….and these young men, mostly, of all colours prey on their fellow denizens! Not the Police. You need a new set of talking points.

Scott M said...

I'm not defending no-knock raids, idiot. I bring it up because the idea that people in cities need handguns for self-defense is made a mockery of when the greatest threat to their safety is usually the police itself.

Are you really claiming that the police are responsible for more murder and/or injury from firearms than the criminals in Chicago? I tried to see it any other way and came up short.

Gun-crime (CRIME...you know, criminals acting illegally) is rampant in gun-free Chicago. I'm trying to remember the last time the cops killed seven people and wounded forty-five others over a weekend, but, again, I came up short.

Please explain.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Can YOU explain how having legal permission to own a handgun will prevent gun crime in Chicago? Are the bystanders in drive-bys going to now be able to whip out their concealed carries and blaze away, preventing crime?

You are distracting from what is an outrageous instance of judicial activism overturning a ban on handguns that has been in place for 30 YEARS. The effects on crime/ self-defense argument is a red herring.

Joe said...

Can YOU explain how having legal permission to own a handgun will prevent gun crime in Chicago?

You mean like the old man, IN CHICAGO, that used his hand gun to fend off the burglar, just last week?

Or do you mean the 1.5-2 million instances, PER YEAR, where the possession and display of a hand gun has prevented a crime?

How about that, or the fact that in states with concealed or open carry the violent crime rate is lower and that in areas with the MOST RESTRICTIVE gun laws, the crime is highest?

Scott M said...

You are distracting from what is an outrageous instance of judicial activism overturning a ban on handguns that has been in place for 30 YEARS. The effects on crime/ self-defense argument is a red herring.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm calling you out to supply evidence that the greatest threat to citizens' safety is the police force itself. You made that claim, not I.

Joe said...

You are distracting from what is an outrageous instance of judicial activism overturning a ban on handguns that has been in place for 30 YEARS. The effects on crime/ self-defense argument is a red herring.
You have an INHERENT right to self-defense, which no law can remove from you, so it is IRRELEVANT how long the hand-gun ban has been in place! Do you also condemn the SCOTUS for having over-turned Separate but Equal Laws, and Jim Crow Laws that had been in place for 80 years? Of course not, ANY law that violates your fundamental constitutional rights needs to be over-turned, no matter how long it has been in place.

Kirk Parker said...

"Her handgun will be a huge help during a mistaken identity no-knock raid from the cops, I bet. "

Well, if it gives some rogue cop or rubber-stamp judge second thoughts, so much the better. (And yes, I use "rogue" very deliberately here: those who plan paramilitary raids when a plain old-fashioned serving of a search warrant would do, are rogue at best, and so profoundly un-American in their outlook that they should be keep miles away from our criminal justice system.)

ricpic said...

It is terrifying that 4 justices voted that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government. As Rush just said, "We're hangin' by a thread, folks."

Fred4Pres said...

Elections matter.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm not defending no-knock raids, idiot. I bring it up because the idea that people in cities need handguns for self-defense is made a mockery of when the greatest threat to their safety is usually the police itself.

And unwittingly you seem to be all in favor of only government employed individuals from owning guns.

Thanks for playing Monty.

Scott M said...

Are the bystanders in drive-bys going to now be able to whip out their concealed carries and blaze away, preventing crime?

Thus illustrating just how little you actually know about what it means to carry a concealed weapon legally, or, in fact, how to use one properly if you were stupid enough to do what you say in the above example.

What of the home defense question posed earlier? What is your answer to defending your family and home against an actual break-in if a gun-free zone? Not snark. I'm honestly interested in your answer.

GMay said...

MontyMonty: "...the greatest threat to their safety is usually the police itself."

I'll nominate this for dumbest thing said on Althouse since HDH said the right wing was responsible for Gen. Betray-us.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Can YOU explain how having legal permission to own a handgun will prevent gun crime in Chicago?

Sure. For example, in my beloved state of Indiana, I have the right to carry a handgun which means when someone breaks into my house I can credibily show him/them the error of their ways versus becoming a victim of a burglury or homicide.

I had a grade school teacher that said there is no such thing as a dumb question but I'm afraid Monty is proving the theory false.

garage mahal said...

It is terrifying that 4 justices voted that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government.

As the Court has ruled for 223 of our 225 years.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution

Since handguns existed at time of the drafting of the Constituion I would say yes, you are correct sir.

A.W. said...

Monty

> I wonder if the well-ordered militias are celebrating this amazing instance of judicial activism today.

Calling bullsh-- on calling it an activist decision. Its precisely what the framers of the 14th A wanted.

> I bring it up because the idea that people in cities need handguns for self-defense is made a mockery of when the greatest threat to their safety is usually the police itself.

Well, isn’t that an even greater argument for the private ownership of arms? If they are disarmed, then the police have no check on their power, now do they?

Now I know you think it won’t do much good, but I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, thank you very much.

> Can YOU explain how having legal permission to own a handgun will prevent gun crime in Chicago?

Easy. Law abiding people now can have guns. Outlaws always had them. So now the law abiding people can shoot too. Seriously, are you so cocooned that you don’t even understand the point of views of those you disagree with?

> You are distracting from what is an outrageous instance of judicial activism overturning a ban on handguns that has been in place for 30 YEARS.

Jim Crow was in effect even longer. Was that judicial activism when the supreme court tore that apart?

The outrageous thing is that the supreme court took 30 years to knock down this unconstitutional law.

Joe said...


As the Court has ruled for 223 of our 225 years


Uh no, but thank you for contributing...the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...142 years ago.

Prior to the DPC there was NO Incorporation Doctrine.

Please do your Constitutional History better, thank you.

virgil xenophon said...

I would take pains to point out that no less that uber-lefty Lawrence Tribe has opined that the 2nd Amend. is a "core value" implying an individuals' right to the unfettered right to bear arms. As our boy Larry has stated: "Because if not you don't get Lexington or Concord."

Blue@9 said...

As the Court has ruled for 223 of our 225 years

Uh no, but thank you for contributing...the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...142 years ago.

Prior to the DPC there was NO Incorporation Doctrine.


Yeah, no kidding. And the court has never ruled on this issue until now, so it's asinine to suggest that the previous regime was dictated by the court.

Bruce Hayden said...

Uh no, but thank you for contributing...the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...142 years ago.

And incorporation came a bit after that.

Scott M said...

Please do your Constitutional History better, thank you.

Um...I thought we all agreed at AltCon last year not to ask Garage to make sure he knows what he's talking about.

That said, I still have all of those pictures from the after-hours, so nobody better defame my character.

A.W. said...

Garage

> As the Court has ruled for 223 of our 225 years

Its funny, i didn't hear too many liberals complaining when the equally long standing laws against gay sex were overturned in Lawrence.

The difference of course is this. the right to bear arms actually appears in the constitution. the right to gay sex does not. its nothing less than a scandal that the rights that are actually written are enforced less rigorously than the ones which are not. that is the judicial activism involved here.

Revenant said...

"No popular consensus" that the right is fundamental? 73% of Americans believe that the Constitution guarantees a personal right to own firearms.

Original Mike said...

"Can YOU explain how having legal permission to own a handgun will prevent gun crime in Chicago?"

Prevent ALL crime? Of course not. But as long as it prevents some crime (like the guy attacking ME), it's good for me. And it's good for society.

A.W. said...

Ann, btw, i found the opinion by alito to be oddly disconnected. in one section he talks about precedent. then the core ignores all that precedent and talks about original meanings, etc.

mind you, i go more with what the founder wanted than the S.C. precedent, but its intersting that way.

Revenant said...

Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Because the framers weren't smart enough to know that different kinds of armaments exist. If only they had *realized* that there was such a thing as a gun that could be held and fired in one hand, they certainly would have remembered to say "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, providing those arms need at least two hands to operate properly, shall not be infringed".

Sadly, they did not. So the Court's hands are tied! :)

Joe said...

Incorporation occurs somewhere between 1897 and 1925...according to Wiki....1925 Incorporates the 1st.

Alex said...

Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Then they would have written "musket" into the Bill of Rights instead of "arms". I think they had the foresight to anticipate the evolution of arms!

TosaGuy said...

"Can YOU explain how having legal permission to own a handgun will prevent gun crime in Chicago?"

Can you explain how it would make it worse?

A.W. said...

Okay, this is Scalia giving Stevens a hard kick in the ass on the way out the door:

> [Stevens] describes as “an important tool for guiding judicial discretion” “sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society.” Post, at 24. I cannot say whetherthat sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is.

bwahahahaha.

garage mahal said...


Yeah, no kidding. And the court has never ruled on this issue until now, so it's asinine to suggest that the previous regime was dictated by the court.


They ruled in 2008 in Heller, and I concede the error in implying the court had ruled for 223 years. They hadn't heard it in 223 years.

Scott M said...

They ruled in 2008 in Heller, and I concede the error in implying the court had ruled for 223 years. They hadn't heard it in 223 years.

1. Red-letter day and congrats. I don't recall seeing you concede an error before.

2. How many people are there yammering in your head and do they all speak English?

3. Did HDH ever admit he was wrong about the Betreuas ad being coined by the right wing?

Joe said...

Good Garage, now all you have to do is notice some of the other postings on "Incorporation" and drop the 223 year thing...Incorporation is 85 to 113 years old. And the 1st Amendment was not "incorporated" until 1925.

The SCOTUS last ruled on the 2nd Amendment, prior to Heller, in Miller, IIRC, in 1933…and decided that on narrow technical grounds.

garage mahal said...

B.S. ScottM, I've conceded an argument in good faith I think 3 times here in the last month.

Big Mike said...

I'm still dismayed that four justices could not bring themselves to accept that individuals have a right to self-defense.

Do they simply tell themselves that if Scalia is for something then they're against it, and they'll figure out why later? I don't understand why this wasn't 8-1 or 9-0.

Big Mike said...

ScottM, I've conceded an argument in good faith I think 3 times here in the last month.

And we really do appreciate these rare events when they do happen.

Seriously.

Big Mike said...

Actually, garage, now that I'm thinking of it. Didn't you own up to having a firearm for home defense in a thread last week some time?

You would deny the right of self-defense to a Chicago city-dweller, despite the objective reality that a Chicago city-dweller is more likely to suffer a home invasion than you are?

Scott M said...

I've conceded an argument in good faith I think 3 times here in the last month.

I did say, "I don't recall", but beuno regardless. While we're on the topic, though, you don't believe citizens have the right to defend themselves and their homes?

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm still dismayed that four justices could not bring themselves to accept that individuals have a right to self-defense.

Big Mike,

My guess is that they do believe in our right to self defense but not if it means using a handgun.

garage mahal said...

Actually, garage, now that I'm thinking of it. Didn't you own up to having a firearm for home defense in a thread last week some time?

Yes I do. And I got to fire my friends M1 Garand again this past weekend, lots of fun. I was not arguing the merits of the ruling at all. It was just Alito blithely asserting that somehow this has been settled history, when it hasn't. As a gun owner, it's complicated for me, the issue of handgun control.

Hoosier Daddy said...

As a gun owner, it's complicated for me, the issue of handgun control.

Its not complicated at all. Use both hands for proper handgun control ;-)

Scott M said...

As a gun owner, it's complicated for me, the issue of handgun control.

As a gun owner and both friend and relative to many, many gun owners, I would like to know why it's complicated for you. It seems pretty straightforward to me. It's the legalistas that keep getting their panties in a wad.

Scott M said...

And, of course, it's pretty straightforward given that we're all still a-clingin' to said guns and yon Bible here in flyover.

Blue@9 said...

They ruled in 2008 in Heller, and I concede the error in implying the court had ruled for 223 years. They hadn't heard it in 223 years.

Did Heller address 2nd Amendment incorporation? No, it didn't. Did any previous court entertain the issue? No.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I would like to know why it's complicated for you.

Banning handguns is one of the Holy Grails of contemporary liberals so it stands to reason garage suffers from a certain amount of cognitive dissonance on the subject.

Brian said...

The Heller decision was simply the 1st shoe to drop. And even after this decision, you can fully expect cities and municipalities that have tight gun control laws to come up with creative ways to keep people from having guns at home.

I'm sure there are enough people versed in the law here to think of laws that would serve to delay the right to purchase and own a gun. Maybe hoping Obama will be able to replace another justice and get the 5 votes he needs?

Joe said...

As a gun owner, it's complicated for me, the issue of handgun control.

Respectfully it ought not be….IF you DIDN’T own a firearm, it would be different. However, as you do, to me at least, it’s like saying, “as the owner of a radio station, restrictions on the First Amendment are complicated.” As a gun owner/radio station owner, you are exercising a Constitutional Right…what’s difficult about recognizing someone else’s SAME right(s)? You can own a gun, but the little brown/black/red/yellow people in Inner City America, can’t? Isn’t that like saying, YOU can speak, but you’re not so sure about the right of minorities to speak?

And I chose the minority angle for a reason….in Chicago it’s Blacks and other minorities that are disproportionately affected by these bans! Is it racism, not today, but previously it was…today it’s classism…Mayor Daley doesn’t own a hand-gun, but he’s got a security detail, Oprah Winfrey doesn’t own a gun, but so does she has a security detail. The RICH have HIRED guns, and the poor, they get eaten….

So what it seems to me, Garage, is that you are saying it’s Ok for Blacks, Or South Asians, or Koreans, or those not blessed with your suburban lifestyle or your security detail, provided by the Government or the rewards of your hard work, to be preyed upon by gun-toting thugs, but that’s NOT OK for you. To me, it’s not really that complicated.

The only complication is what “Reasonable Time, Place and Manner” restrictions can you place on firearm ownership?

A.W. said...

Brian

i am pretty sure Thomas and Scalia have decided that if they leave before Obama's term is up, its going to be feet first.

And both men are still young enough that they will probably make it. I think Ginsberg is actually the oldest, but i could be wrong.

t-man/wurly/henry buck said...

Once again, I think Justice Thomas is the most under-appreciated Justice Breyer is a proverbial "loose cannon" of constitutional jurisprudence.

Chase said...

THIS IS WHY ELECTIONS MATTER.

What idiocy Breyer is capable of.

Oppose Kagan because she will be an additional idiot on the Supreme Court.

Seriously. We haven't learned enough about the horrifying and freedom eliminating repercussions of political liberals on the Supreme Court?

One vote. Only one Vote protected the Constitution in this case

Holy Shit, America. No more Kagan's. No more Sotomayor's. No more Breyer's. No more Steven's. No more Ginsburg's (with condolences to her at his time of her husband's passing).

Otherwise just hand them the keys to your house and your give them your social security and bank account numbers.

Wake.The.Fuck.Up. The pot is starting to simmer.

Big Mike said...

Hey, everybody! Lighten up on garage. I think he's honestly working his way through the issue and we ought to let him alone until he does.

Meanwhile, garage, you really liked the Garand? I much preferred the M14. Lighter weight, more rounds, no tell-tale ping to let the enemy know when you were out, and, frankly, it just felt better in my hands. (And since a flake of dust anywhere within 3 meters of an M16 would cause it to jam, I never cared for the M16 one bit).

holdfast said...

Blogger Hoosier Daddy said...

Its not complicated at all. Use both hands for proper handgun control ;-)

For girls, maybe, but a true man uses a classic duelist stance - it presents the enemy with a much smaller target and has a much higher LCF (look cool factor).

Scott M said...

Its not complicated at all. Use both hands for proper handgun control ;-)

Off-hand pistol training is an absolute bitch though. Loading the weapon and racking it all with one hand (I prefer behind the knee and off the belt) is hard enough to begin with, let alone shooting one-handed with your off hand. Grouping doesn't quite describe the result.

D'ya think Monty gave up? We haven't heard from him all day.

A.W. said...

> D'ya think Monty gave up? We haven't heard from him all day.

Yeah, Monty, what is your deal?

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

Jeremy said...

K said..."Why wouldn't they have handguns in mind? Handguns, although primitive by our standards, did exist at the time of our founding."

Of course.

And they were probably all dreaming of the day they might all get their hands on a shiny new Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine...or if they were really lucky, an Uzi, capable of firing 600 9mm rounds a minute.

Duh.

garage mahal said...

Big Mike
Never fired a M14, although I';d love to. When I said it was fun shooting the M1, although it's not a hot collectors item as it's been worked on, it does have some interesting history behind it. That, and the male bonding of course ;)

The Bear said...

When I read the vast majority (including the opinions of the 4 dissenters) of the people opposing the 2nd amendment I swear I hear the same sort of logic we all heard out of Milwaukee Country Supervisor Peggy West in her geographical dissertation on Arizona.

One massive spew of "Hap'duhhhhhh my bwain huwtsss.

Looney-tunes logic.

We've descended into a society-sizedl cartoon.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My guess is that they do believe in our right to self defense but not if it means using a handgun.

Cool. How about a shotgun? A mac10? Bolt action 30.06? Bushmaster. Reuger Mini 30? Crossbow? Compound bow?

I think that the" right to bear arms shall not be infringed" didn't mean that we nit pick into infinite detail handgun versus other arms. Right to bear arms is just that.

Revenant said...

And they were probably all dreaming of the day they might all get their hands on a shiny new Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine...or if they were really lucky, an Uzi, capable of firing 600 9mm rounds a minute.

Yes, surely a group of men for whom private ownership of cannon and warships was normal would have balked at the idea of a person owning a Glock or an Uzi. The Uzi has too much killing pow... er, I mean it is too much like a military wea... er, I mean ordinary people couldn't be trusted with... um, well I'm sure they would have been against it for SOME reason, darn it! They probably didn't know you can use guns to kill people!

On a more serious note, anyone who thinks the idea of a multi-shot or rapid-fire weapon was unthinkable in the 18th century really ought to read a history book. Gunsmiths tried for centuries to make such weapons; they just needed to wait for technology to catch up with their imaginations.

Big Mike said...

@garage, the M14 was issued to us for Basic Combat Training when I was drafted 42 years ago this Christmas. I'd handled Garands before -- they were pretty common in the Midwest in the 50's -- and my hat'off to the WWII vets who carried that heavy lunker all the way through Europe.

I really came to respect my M14, and I knocked down a lot of targets with it. I'm sorry that there's no civilian version of it.

I fired the M16 only once, and only in BCT. They were still scarce enough that we could only get one day with them on the firing range. I was in the 3rd group of trainees to come to the line, and mine jammed after 3 rounds. Despite that I was issued an Expert's badge for the M16. Those must have been 3 very accurate rounds. [yeah, sure]

Big Mike said...

Well, that's really weird. I just went over to Wikipedia where I discovered that the M1 Garand was actually quite a bit lighter and slightly shorter than the M14. I guess because my memory of the Garand belongs to the time when I was a kid while the M14 belongs to a time when I was a very physically fit twenty-something.

Or perhaps I'm merely getting old.

Jeremy said...

Gun Nut Bunny - "I think that the" right to bear arms shall not be infringed" didn't mean that we nit pick into infinite detail handgun versus other arms. Right to bear arms is just that."

So none of those "amendments" to the Constitution were necessary?

Duh.

Jeremy said...

Revenant - Yeah, keep on churning.

"They probably didn't know you can use guns to kill people!"

Comparing a Glock or an Uzi to their conception of a handgun or firearm's ability to kill people.

You're an idiot.

Youngblood said...

Big Mike,

Isn't the Springfield M1A the civilian version of the M14? Or am I misremembering?

Jack Okie said...

Big Mike:

I was in one of the last basic training companies at Ft. Polk to have the M1 Garand. I had only done some plinking with a .22 before I was drafted, but somehow qualified Expert on the pop-up range. I really liked the M1. It just seemed to fit right. Since I was in the Medical Corps, our qualification a year later was with the M1 carbine.

Lawgiver said...

And I got to fire my friends M1 Garand again this past weekend, lots of fun.

I can still visualize how to field strip an M1---blind folded.

"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun!"

Scott M said...

Jeremy

You act as though our Founders existed in static technological plateau as far as the various and plentiful means of killing people are concerned.

Ever hear of Ferguson? Possibly. Certainly after you just googled it. Maybe that will clue you in to the fact that the very intelligent men writing the Constitution were aware that weapons technology had not always been black powder muskets and probably wouldn't always be.

Or, maybe you think they thought muskets just sprang up out of the ground one day due to God's divine will to see them pulverize each other at a distance greater than bow or arbalest shot.

Scott M said...

One additional thing. Are you really sure you want to argue policy based on what you think the Founders could have foreseen or not? I believe that's going to cause your Great Society more problems than my SCOTUS win today.

Big Mike said...

So none of those "amendments" to the Constitution were necessary?

Well, the 18th certainly turned out to be unnecessary, though the 18th did necessitate the 21st.

But, ultimately, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has affirmed that none of the succeeding amendments has overturned the 2nd, and that one does, in point of fact, have a right of self defense.

Even if one isn't a hard core liberal.

Seven Machos said...

Are you really sure you want to argue policy based on what you think the Founders could have foreseen or not?

It is such a ridiculous, scurrilous, poorly thought-out argument. No free speech on the Internet (let alone television or radio). Lots more fun, too. I guess it would be easier for the left, given its general predilection for dictatorship in the name of social justice, whatever the fuck that is.

Big Mike said...

@Youngblood, Wikipedia agrees with your recollection. I had heard that the M14 was never produced in a commercial variant the way that the AR15 is a commercial version of the M16, but I guess I heard wrong.

Wikipedia also says that a new semiautomatic M1A costs $1700.

Big Mike said...

@Seven Machos, quite right. Whatever Jeremy's fascination with semiautomatic and fully automatic handguns, Alito gets right to the salient point: American citizens have a fundamental right to self-defense and neither states nor localities may infringe upon that right by taking away the right of people to own the means of self-defense.

Jeremy said...

Scott - "the very intelligent men writing the Constitution were aware that weapons technology had not always been black powder muskets and probably wouldn't always be."

Yes, and just include the time frame comparison between how far weapons technology had come at their point in time...and the 200 years or so since.

Based on what they knew existed then, do you really think they were even remotely aware of what future held?

Get-real.

Seven Machos said...

Based on what they knew existed then, do you really think they were even remotely aware of what future held?

This is why it's so easy for fascists like Jeremy to promote censorship in radio and television and on the Internet. After all, the Constitution did not and could not possibly have envisioned these things.

Chase said...

103 comments so far and not one on the "right to arm bears"?

Eric said...

You are distracting from what is an outrageous instance of judicial activism overturning a ban on handguns that has been in place for 30 YEARS. The effects on crime/ self-defense argument is a red herring.

How long were the Jim Crow laws in effect? Should we have kept those too? What about abortion? Is Roe wrong because it struck down old laws?

The fact that it took 30 years to strike down clearly unconstitutional laws is the outrage, not this decision.

Seven Machos said...

How about those judicial activists who overturned the prejudicial laws that burdened illegitimate children? Those laws had been in place for centuries.

Goddamn judicial activism!

Eric said...

Comparing a Glock or an Uzi to their conception of a handgun or firearm's ability to kill people.

This sort of thing is why the founders provided a method to change the constitution. That method doesn't involve emanations from penumbras, by the way.

Seven Machos said...

emanations from penumbras

You may kill babies, but not with handguns. That's what the penumbra told us.

Thank God the 60s and 70s are over. What a terrible time for political thought. I was just reading the classic case on Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a motion. Pages upon pages when the judges could easily have written four words: judges get to decide.

J.R. said...

So Justice Breyer is arguing that the states may curtail first amendment rights?

Seven Machos said...

I have not seen what Breyer has to say. However, has there ever been a Supreme Court justice so unremarkable and unmemorable as Breyer is?

Revenant said...

Comparing a Glock or an Uzi to their conception of a handgun or firearm's ability to kill people.

Actually, I was comparing a Glock or an Uzi to a broadside from a warship. The Founders lived in a time when it was normal for the capacity for wholesale slaughter to reside in private hands. There was considerable sentiment among them that those were the ONLY hands in which such power should reside -- there was a lot of distrust for government armies.

Revenant said...

Yes, and just include the time frame comparison between how far weapons technology had come at their point in time...and the 200 years or so since.

Well, in their time it was easy to envision rifles capable of firing multiple shots before reloading... because rifles capable of that had existed for nearly 200 years.

But even if we pretend that they couldn't have imagined, say, an Uzi, the Founders were specifically protecting the right of the people to own military-grade firearms. You can't serve in a militia without militia-quality weaponry. So the answer to the question "would the Founders have let a person own this gun" is easy -- it is the same as the answer to the question "would a military force use this gun".

Revenant said...

judicial activism overturning a ban on handguns that has been in place for 30 YEARS.

Jim Crow laws were in place for 90 years. The nice thing about the Constitution is that it stays the same, no matter how many decades the courts allow it to be violated.

Cedarford said...

"downtownlad said...
Yes, because it was obvious that the framers had "handguns" in mind when they wrote the Constitution."

Actually, it is obvious, because handguns were quite common. Not only did hunters carry one or a club as backup to their single-shot rifle or shotgun, but they were regular militia and home items.
Handguns were a lot cheaper than a good rifle back then. A lot easier to make. Just like today, where a person with a decent metal working shop could turn out dozens of roughly made, low tech, but quite servicable single shot handuns a day if it was legal to do so or they were building for a black market.

Also, it shocks liberals to death to hear it, but a full auto pistol or rifle is simpler to make than a semi-auto. A blowback operated 9mm submachine gun can be made so it has only around 8 parts.

And once America was more urbanized, before most places had large hiring of armed government employees, handguns were common for self-protection, not just "out west" but East Coast and Rustbelt cities.

Seven Machos said...

Oh my God, it's that Jew-hating bastard Cedarford.

Dude! We've been talking about you. You are a primary impetus behind Althouse's effort to see the Journolist archive. Thank you, you anti-Semitic scum douche.

Jeremy said...

Eric said..."This sort of thing is why the founders provided a method to change the constitution. That method doesn't involve emanations from penumbras, by the way."

Exactly my point.

And if they were here today they'd be dumbstruck at people like yourself trying to say they envisioned anything approaching what we have today...and of course, they would have strongly suggested an amendment to remedy the situation.

Gun controls, background checks before issuing licenses and possession, proper training...things like that.

But gun owners and the NRA argue against damn near anything that makes sense, always basing it on a biased interpretation of the Founding Father's intentions.

Chicago / June 22, 2010:

At least 40 shootings occurred in the city of Chicago this weekend, with at least eight of the shootings resulting in death. This covers the period spanning 8:43 pm on Friday through 6:39 a.m. on Monday.

Seven Machos said...

Chicago / June 22, 2010:

At least 40 shootings occurred in the city of Chicago this weekend, with at least eight of the shootings resulting in death. This covers the period spanning 8:43 pm on Friday through 6:39 a.m. on Monday.


Chicago has strong gun control laws. How many shootings occurred in the Houston area, where gun control in much less stringent, over the same period of time? Was it fewer? Why?

Seven Machos said...

Also -- Jeremy, why not amend the Constitution if you want to amend it? You could be actually useful.

Of course, there's no way that could happen because people would never allow it under our representative system. See you in November.

Fen said...

Jeremy should register his speech and attend a class on hate speech before exercising his 1st ammendment rights.

Jeremy said...

Fen said..."Jeremy should register his speech and attend a class on hate speech before exercising his 1st ammendment rights."

What speech?

You think anybody who says what you don't want to hear is somehow "hating."

It's an overused term and is irrelevant here.

And I've read plenty of your comments over time and you love to throw out denigrating, or in your terms, "hateful" posts directed at specific individuals.

Quit whining and buck up.

Seven Machos said...

Jeremy -- Your speech on the Internet should be restricted because in the late 1700s, there was no Internet.

Q.E.D.

Scott M said...

At least 40 shootings occurred in the city of Chicago this weekend, with at least eight of the shootings resulting in death. This covers the period spanning 8:43 pm on Friday through 6:39 a.m. on Monday.

This can't possibly be true. There are very strong anti-gun laws in Chicago so, therefore, it's patently unthinkable that people would break the law in both owning and using firearms. You must be mistaken.

...unless, of course, criminals could give two shits about Constitutionality and municipal firearms regulations. When you ban guns, you are merely laying open law-abiding citizens to attack at the hands of those who, as already mentioned, could give two shits about what you think is right.

Sixty Grit said...

I am a strong advocate of more range time for thugs. The fact that so many of their victims survive is disheartening. They need to learn center body mass, front sight, and hold the firearm upright, homey. The kill ratio needs to be improved. A smart community organizer would make sure that more shooting ranges were built in the ghetto. The problem would become quickly self-limiting.

Scott M said...

Mayor Daley says,

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

Having grown up on the south side of Chicago, it's been some years, but I can't quite remember what ivory tower the Mayor governs from. Interesting too his use of country and nation in the same sentence, almost opposing each other.

Imbecile at best.

Big Mike said...

Interesting analysis here. I guess Jeremy and the other trolls didn't get the word in time.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - You evidently didn't read the article you reference.

I certainly understand the political ramifications of the decision...all positive for the Democrats by the way (DUH)...but still find the argument here, that our Founding Fathers would embrace the kinds of weaponry available today as being reasonable...r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.

And other than just liking to suck up to your fellow wing nuts here...most of you really know that.

Scott M said...

@Jeremy

Honestly interested to know.

1) Do you own a firearm.

2) Even assuming you're 100% right and the Founders only thought a single-shot pistol was "reasonable", how do you suppose that would stack up against the very weaponry you describe in a real life-or-death situation?

3) Do you assume that passing every single gun control law you can think of is going to end gun violence? As has been mentioned many times, criminals usually don't pay much attention to the vaunted gun control laws anyway.

4) What, in particular, do you have against legal gun ownership?

5) I don't know if you've got kids, but what do you do if someone break into your house? Rapidly call 911 and hope for the best?

Jeremy said...

Scott - First of all, I have nothing against individual gun ownership. I've owned guns over the years, rifles and handguns, but at present do not. (And no, I don't buy into the what would you do "if someone breaks into your house" argument...since the odds are ridiculously low for that specific scenario to occur...versus an accidental shooting by an adult or one of those kids you mention.)

This is my take on ownership and what I think should be required:

1. A screening process to weed out people who shouldn't have guns of any kind, the parameters relating to crime, mental stability and age.

2. Required training, lock boxes and trigger guards to reduce the possibility of mistakes and injuries or fatalities to both adults and children.

4. Periodic re-licensing to assure authorities of criminal behavior after being licensed.

5. Outlawing specific "overkill" weaponry like AK-47's, automatic weapons, and the ability to alter guns, making them into what they were not designed to be. (Tell me why anyone needs an Ak-47, Glock17 or an Uzi...)

*But of course, the NRA and many gun owners are against almost everything I've just listed...but that doesn't mean specific laws and guidelines wouldn't be a good start.

As for the Founding Father argument, let me put it this way:

If you could magically bring the Founding Fathers into the present day, took them out to a firing range and had them all take turns firing AK-47's, Glock 17's or UZIS...and then asked them if these were the kinds of weapons they had in mind while drafting the 2nd Amendment...I find it difficult to believe you or anyone here would think they would say "absolutely!"

I-doubt-it...

Scott M said...

Scott - First of all, I have nothing against individual gun ownership. I've owned guns over the years, rifles and handguns, but at present do not. (And no, I don't buy into the what would you do "if someone breaks into your house" argument...since the odds are ridiculously low for that specific scenario to occur...versus an accidental shooting by an adult or one of those kids you mention.

That is completely relative to where you live. I, living in a relatively crime-free outer suburb, have had my home broken into while I was there and the 35-year-old retarded woman, wielding a butcher knife, made no bones about telling me she was there for my napping 2-year-old. Let alone living in a high-crime area on the north side, which I did, where we were broken in to constantly. Your argument as far as probabilities go ring hollow to someone confronted with what you apparently see as the short odds.

1. A screening process to weed out people who shouldn't have guns of any kind, the parameters relating to crime, mental stability and age.

These already exist. Off-topic, but as you believe age should eventually preclude legal gun ownership, I’m assuming you also believe age should eventually preclude driving privileges?

2. Required training, lock boxes and trigger guards to reduce the possibility of mistakes and injuries or fatalities to both adults and children.

Are you saying the government should legislate trigger locks and gun safes in the home? Required training is already required for CC. Are you advocating the government conduct home inspections on citizens that own firearms?

4. Periodic re-licensing to assure authorities of criminal behavior after being licensed.

Requiring a license to own a gun, just to own it, mind you, is an encroachment on the right to bear arms. It fundamental. This goes back to the original intent. The right to bear arms is supposed to be a bulwark against tyrannical abuse of state power of the citizenry. If all of the weapons (legally-owned weapons, of course) are registered, the first thing someone with intent to abuse power will do would be to round them up. Don’t say it couldn’t happen here. Do I mean right now? No. Could it happen in ten, twenty, fifty years? Why not? Do we really want to find out?

5. Outlawing specific "overkill" weaponry like AK-47's, automatic weapons, and the ability to alter guns, making them into what they were not designed to be. (Tell me why anyone needs an Ak-47, Glock17 or an Uzi...)

There are far, far more legal owners of assault rifles in this country than there are instances of illegal use. But that’s irrelevant. The right to bear arms is supposed to be a bulwark, remember. It’s the same situation the cops face when they try to go up against a criminal armed with assault rifles armed with only revolvers and shotguns. Besides, those weapons are out there and there are millions upon millions of them. What is your plan to get rid of them if you make assault rifles illegal? Personally, I’m all for Switzerland’s answer to the issue.

As for the Founding Father argument, let me put it this way:

If you could magically bring the Founding Fathers into the present day, took them out to a firing range and had them all take turns firing AK-47's, Glock 17's or UZIS...and then asked them if these were the kinds of weapons they had in mind while drafting the 2nd Amendment...I find it difficult to believe you or anyone here would think they would say "absolutely!"


Depends. You’d have to take them down to the nearest military base and show them what those soldiers are armed with. I would more likely believe that, given the Federalist Papers, the Founders would be far, far more in favor of Switzerland’s answer, in which every household has a complete military kit at home.

Big Mike said...

My dear Jeremy, I can't imagine why you think I'd link to an article I hadn't read in its entirety. I even agree with its conclusions, which is that Republican candidates can no longer point a finger at Democrats (well, except maybe for Mayor Daley) and win votes by proclaiming that said Democrat would come kicking your door down to take away your guns.

If you could magically bring the Founding Fathers into the present day, took [sic] them out to a firing range and had them all take turns firing AK-47's, Glock 17's or UZIS...and then asked them if these were the kinds of weapons they had in mind while drafting the 2nd Amendment...I find it difficult to believe you or anyone here would think they would say "absolutely!

Unless, of course, that you were honest enough to them that criminals already have access to such weaponry. I think they'd agree that citizens should have access to matching firepower for purposes of self-defense. If you added that politicians belonging to Tom Jefferson's party believe that law-abiding citizens should be defenseless in the face of criminals invading their home, they'd probably smack old Tommy over the head with their walking sticks.

I can understand why you're against ownership of a fully automatic weapon like the AK-47 or an Uzi, though why you're so overwrought about the Glock 17 as compared to MAC-10 or Tek-9, which are readily available to criminals, is beyond me. Unless it's the fact that the Glock is legal while the MAC-10 and Tek-9 are pretty much used by street gangs? Yes, the Glock carries 16 9mmx19mm Parabellum rounds in its magazine (same round as the WWII Luger), but the shooter still needs to squeeze the trigger for each shot, and reacquire a sight picture for the next shot. If I'm in a shoot-out -- and I hope I'm not -- it'll be over way before 16 rounds have been expended. One way or another.

At any rate, IMAO your raising the issue of fully automatic weapons is a smoke screen. Such weapons are already in the hands of the criminals and this is scarcely news. In pre-Heller Washington, DC, AK-47s were readily available for drive-bys. As Nicholas Cage comments in his movie Lord of War, "even a child can operate [an AK-47], and many do."

You'd probably be shocked that some of us actually agree with a parts of your numbered points, particularly as relates to training. But you want it all your way or nothing. So you get nothing. Too bad.

Jeremy said...

Scott - "That is completely relative to where you live."

I never said having a gun to protect your home and family is never relevant, only that people don't need Glock 17's or Uzis to handle matters. Did you need either?

"These already exist."

But they vary from state to state.

"I’m assuming you also believe age should eventually preclude driving privileges?"

It already does...doesn't it?

"Are you saying the government should legislate trigger locks and gun safes in the home?"

Yes.

"Required training is already required for CC."

But not for merely owning a gun and having it in your home. Right?

"Are you advocating the government conduct home inspections on citizens that own firearms?"

No.

"Requiring a license to own a gun, just to own it, mind you, is an encroachment on the right to bear arms."

Would you want someone who is mentally unstable, recently released from prison...to live next door and own a Glock 17? I-doubt-it.

"The right to bear arms is supposed to be a bulwark against tyrannical abuse of state power of the citizenry."

What would a group of citizens, bearing arms, do to suppress the U.S. Government from doing whatever the hell they want?

"If all of the weapons (legally-owned weapons, of course) are registered, the first thing someone with intent to abuse power will do would be to round them up."

This is the standard argument via the NRA and rabid gun owners, but there are plenty of democratic countries that have stringent gun laws and the government hasn't "taken over."

"There are far, far more legal owners of assault rifles in this country than there are instances of illegal use."

So what? Why do they need them? What is their practical use?

"It’s the same situation the cops face when they try to go up against a criminal armed with assault rifles armed with only revolvers and shotguns."

We outlawed machine guns.

"What is your plan to get rid of them if you make assault rifles illegal?"

You have to start somewhere.

"Personally, I’m all for Switzerland’s answer to the issue."

*Switzerland: "A gunpermit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record can request such a permit...and only private citizens working in occupations such as security can carry."

But here, you and others feel EVERYBODY should be able to walk around with a gun. I disagree.

"I would more likely believe that, given the Federalist Papers, the Founders would be far, far more in favor of Switzerland’s answer, in which every household has a complete military kit at home."

First of all, there are only about 8,000,000 people in Switzerland and about 1,000,000 guns. Compare that to 300,000,000 people and the FBI's estimate of 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US.

C'mon...

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - Why would anyone need a Glock 17?

So you can possess the same firepower as those nasty criminals breaking into your home? (Show me all of the cases where this actually happens...versus those same guns killing the owners or their kids via accidental shootings.)

And you also keep touting the fact that "criminals" have access to all of these guns, never admitting that by disallowing the sale of such guns it would eventually remove them from the streets over time.

They used to also have machine guns.

See any of them around lately?

Big Mike said...

There are far, far more legal owners of assault rifles in this country than there are instances of illegal use.

@Scott, I'm not convinced of that. I'm mostly on your side in this discussion, but I'd like to see a link that substantiates your assertion. I'm convinced just the the opposite way, that more of the fully automatic weapons are owned by criminals than legally owned. Not that I plan to wait and see what some potential home invader is armed with so I can match his firepower. I don't see the need for a fully automatic weapon for home defense and wouldn't own one. But I don't presume to let my personal views dictate to others whose circumstances are different from mine.

On the other hand we already have an existence proof that a country can use registration of legal firearms to confiscate said firearms -- Great Britain is an example. Today it is illegal even to defend yourself in the UK. From what he's written in the rants he's posted here, I think Jeremy agrees. I think you and I agree with Alito.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - "Today it is illegal even to defend yourself in the UK."

I'm not exactly sure what that means. Are you saying that if someone breaks into a home or tries to rob someone in the UK...they have to just hand over the cash?

And can I assume you're not aware of the fact that there were a grand total of 42 gun-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2008?

And we had a paltry 33,000?

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - Oh, and I forgot to add that about half of the gun deaths in America are suicides, and that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

Comforting...

Big Mike said...

And you also keep touting the fact that "criminals" have access to all of these guns, never admitting that by disallowing the sale of such guns it would eventually remove them from the streets over time.

I don't admit it because it's simply not true. I don't care how thoroughly you believe what you just wrote, it just isn't true. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, it just made Al Capone rich. In Chicago, in pre-Heller Washington, there were plenty of guns possessed by drug dealers and other criminals. Also by citizens whose connections to the ruling Democrat party would allow them to get a pass (c.f. Carl Rowan). All that happened in Chicago and pre-Heller Washington was that gun-running became a very profitable business.

They used to also have machine guns.

See any of them around lately?


Personally, no. Make that thankfully no. But there are plenty of fully automatic weapons out there being held by criminals. Wikipedia says that MAC-10s and Tek-9s are cheap, and very much in the hands of criminals. To quote the Wikipedia entry, the Tec-9 "bears the dubious distinction of being one of the most widely used "criminal" guns in USA". [sic] Locally The Post ran a series about a tragic series of shoot-outs traced back to a young man who felt he'd been "dissed" over a piece of bling he'd mislaid. I wasn't at all surprised to read how easily he and his brother laid hands on an AK-47 and a bunch of other guns, stringent gun control laws or no gun control laws.

I wouldn't personally own a fully automatic weapon, even if they were legal -- an they're really only technically legal given the paperwork and the hoops that one has to go through to own one legally. But that's the point of what I've been asserting, isn't it? They're both illegal and ubiquitous.

I still don't get why you're so phobic about the Glock 17. Aside from magazine capacity there's not much difference between a Glock 17 and any other 9mm handgun -- or a .38 Special for that matter. Why you're terrified by it is beyond my comprehension.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - Prohibition and stringent laws have been highly effective in other countries. We just don't have the guts to initiate them...and comparing booze to guns is ridiculous.

And why do you suppose you don't see machine guns?

As for your statement that "I still don't get why you're so phobic about the Glock 17."

I'm not "phobic" about anything. I just use that specific gun as an example of overkill. Why would anyone need a gun that holds 30 rounds of ammunition?

But let me be clear: If you and others want to buy and own as many guns as you can load into your trunk...that's your prerogative and as of right now, evidently your right as a citizen.

And please, make sure you don't lock 'em up or use trigger guards...you wouldn't want your kids to be unable to defend themselves when you're attacked or the government comes to take over.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, as regards the UK, if you injure or kill someone while defending yourself or your property it is at the Crown's discretion whether to prosecute. A farmer named Tony Martin found himself in jail after shooting two burglars in his house. You can Google the case yourself.

I think that someone who wants to kill himself can do it even if there aren't any guns around. Your alleged argument is a non-starter. I won't give up my right of self-defense just to force someone to hang himself instead of using a gun.

Big Mike said...

A Glock 17's magazines hold 16 rounds, not 30. That gun really gets under your skin, doesn't it? It's a pretty common police firearm; I trust you don't break out in hives whenever you stroll past a cop.

When my boys were little I kept my handgun field stripped with the magazine out. It can't be fired while field stripped and unloaded, and little kids wouldn't know how to reassemble it, much less where I kept the magazine. But I could reassemble it faster than I could unlock a gun safe, so it fulfilled more or less the same role as the fire extinguisher I keep near the kitchen -- hope I never have to use it, but if I need it I'll need it bad and I want it available.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - You can most certainly purchase a Glock, maybe not the 17...but...

...well...read the add:

Glock High Capacity Magazine mf17033

This Glock® Factory Magazine is the perfect companion for your 9mm Glock®. Having 33 rounds of continuous fire, this Glock® Factory Magazine is perfect for on the range, in the field or on the streets as a self protection device.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - Are you actually trying to say that in the UK...you can't defend yourself?

Really?

Is that what you're saying?

And you base this on the one case you site?

I don't mind discussing or debating an issue, but let's get real.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy read here. And in the future you can stop being lazy and go look it up for yourself.

Big Mike said...

And as regards the 33-round extended magazine, it fits all 9mm x 19mm Glocks, including the pocket-sized ones. And if you had bothered to do the research, I'm reasonably certain you'd find extended magazine available for just about any semiautomatic.

But I'm not going to do the research for you; I've got better things to do with my time.

Camille Paglia once wrote that she was frightened of semiautomatics. I don't get her, and I don't get you. You're afraid of a 9mm semiautomatic but apparently not afraid of a .45 caliber revolver? You might survive being hit by the former but it's only in old cowboy shows that the hero gets hit by a bunch of rounds from a .45 Colt revolver and keeps on coming.

Big Mike said...

Can I assume, Jeremy, that you're not planning to vote for Pamela Gorman?

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - Using "Ace" from the far, far, far, far, right website; Ace of Spades as your reference just cost you any degree of credence.

Sorry, but I've been there and seen what appears on his threads of wing nut drivel.

And once again: How does a single case referenced in the UK have to do with your ridiculous comment that "Today it is illegal even to defend yourself in the UK?"

Let's just say we agree to disagree and move on.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, neither of my posts were from ace.mu.nu. Apparently you read the first word of the first post and your brain shut down.

The post did list three cases (not merely one) where individuals were arrested for defending themselves -- in one case a woman was arrested for using a cap pistol to subdue her assailants. These are things that you can check out online and whose existence you can readily confirm. I see no reason to "agree to disagree," when we are talking about objective reality. The information is out there. I found it, you can too.