denialism blog : We Can Haz HandCannon!

Search this blog

Profile

Please read the DISCLAIMERS.

Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.

Chris Hoofnagle is a recovering Washington, DC lawyer and information privacy law expert at UC-Berkeley Law School. Denialism became apparent to him while working on consumer protection laws in Washington. The Denialists' Deck of Cards is essentially a how-to guide for being an industry lobbyist.

PalMD is a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States. Aside from the great joy he finds in his family and his work, he likes communicating some of that joy to others. He has a special interest in the ways patients---and we are all patients at one time or another---are deceived by charlatans. He aims to change the world, one reader at a time. Previous writings can still be found here.

Please read the DISCLAIMERS.

Other

« What good is scienceblogging? | Main | 2nd Amendment Right to the Poop Gun? »

We Can Haz HandCannon!

Category: Wasting your time
Posted on: June 27, 2008 12:31 PM, by Chris H

Mark, I find your post on DC v. Heller lacking in enthusiasm. It is not often that our Supreme Court finds a new constitutional right (except when big business wants more rights). We should celebrate this, thing--the Second Amendment. It must be important, right, since it becomes before the Third and Fourth!

We should exercise it too. I'm a fan of the old school Colt 45 Auto:

What handcannon are you going to buy?

Comments

The Judge

Posted by: MarkH | June 27, 2008 12:45 PM

Bah.. I am waiting for the micro-reactor operated hand held rail gun. Why accidentally shoot yourself in the foot when you can disintegrate it instead? lol

Posted by: Kagehi | June 27, 2008 1:51 PM

I'll take an AMT Hardballer thank you. I wish they would come out with such fancy rail guns. You know, the kind that can see through walls in x-ray like vision and shoot your target in the heart. I KNOW for a FACT that the framers of the Constitution had precisely that in mind.

Posted by: Chad | June 27, 2008 2:03 PM

For a real handful, try a Thompson-Center Contender in, say, .45-70.

http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistolCharts.php

Posted by: Nelson Muntz | June 27, 2008 4:38 PM

@Nelson, sorry it won't fit in my pants.

Posted by: Chris H. | June 27, 2008 4:53 PM

Obligatory boxer remark: Hey, who needs a hand cannon when your hands are cannons?

Posted by: Hank | June 27, 2008 5:19 PM

Personally, I'm opposed a right to own a gun... but I still agree with the decision. The second ammendment says that Americans have a right to own weapons, and the court agreed with that. As long as the ammendment is in place, the right persists - and no branch of government has the power to stop gun ownership. It's a constitutional right, it's the highest legal document in the country, and as long as the right is in there it exists.

I would support starting the elaborate process of repealing the second ammendment, but I would be opposed to any attempts to work-around it by legal trickery - eg, making guns legal to own only with a licence that is prohibitively expensive. It's a obsolete, pointless ammendment that should be gotten rid of - but it's still a constitutional right until the day it is finally repealed by the appropriate legal process*.

I wish this were a more common view, but in law the dirty trick preveils more often than now. Don't like a constitutional right? Most pressure groups will attempt to indirectly attack it, or to stuff the courts with judges favourable to their political views. These are effective means, but... I consider them cheating. It's subverting the proper legal and democratic process by the use of loopholes.

*An amendment can't be removed, but another ammendment can be passed to disable it. See the end of prohibition.

Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 27, 2008 6:41 PM

@Hank, and the nice thing about hands is that they fit in pants.

Posted by: Chris H. | June 27, 2008 7:28 PM

Chronic crazy person here. Ineligible, apathetic, would probably settle for a slingshot.

Posted by: Brian X | June 28, 2008 12:42 AM

Over here in England there's a debate over how pointy knives should be. Yes, should we be allowed to own knives with points? After all, knives are for cutting things, not stabbing people. At the moment I can own a pointy knife if I want to, but 'I Can Haz Pointy Blade' doesn't have the same ring to it.

Posted by: valdemar | June 30, 2008 12:18 PM

I already owns me one of those Glock 23 .40s. But I'm just a dumb southern redneck.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2008 3:22 PM