9 minutes ago, HomerS said:

 

First off let me say: Oh God Scalia...

 

 What I want to restrict is where we can have guns. There is absolutely no reason for you to even carry a hand gun in civilized society. You and every other American needs to think to themselves, "What are the odds I'm going to somehow accidentally run into a crime? What are the odds someone is going to come into my home either trying to murder me or take my stuff?".

 

In my opinion, Scalia was one of the best SCOTUS justices who actually let good old common sense in many decisions (even though sometimes I didn't share his position). And there's absolutely nothing wrong or illogical in his reasoning quoted above by @TA120. Limiting Second Amendment to muskets and organised military formations seems like... Like banning right-wing media to protect the freedom of speech, yes.

 

There's absolutely no reason to restrict my free will in  a civilized society if I don't do harm to anyone. Maybe there's no reason to carry a baseball bat in the trunk of my car if I don't play baseball either?

 

Yes, guns are dangerous, so are, for example, cars and/or certain chemicals in the wrong hands. Can't ban it all.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by Hastings

2 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Not allowing Americans to carry weapons for self-defense is the implication of an outright ban, because they can't be used for anything other than recreation...

 

You don't need to carry a gun, but you have no right to tell me what I need to carry. If you want to remain unarmed, you have every right to do so, but I'm going to carry, and I do carry, and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.

 

So you're saying you don't need a gun, but you want to carry a highly effective deadly weapon just for fun? It's not a damn Gucci purse you wear as a fashion item it's a weapon that if you carry it you're prepared to use it on whatever you want to use it on.

1 hour ago, HomerS said:

 

First off let me say: Oh God Scalia...

 

Anyway. Do note. I never said anything about banning firearms outright. Don't put words in my mouth here. How about you read my post above. What I want to restrict is where we can have guns. There is absolutely no reason for you to even carry a hand gun in civilized society. You and every other American needs to think to themselves, "What are the odds I'm going to somehow accidentally run into a crime? What are the odds someone is going to come into my home either trying to murder me or take my stuff?". The last part of the amendment I'll have to look into. For some reason it's impossible to find direct quotes from the second amendment. I'll get back to you once I educate myself on the topic.

I did bro. What you're talking about (the restriction of where you may or may not possess a handgun) is the entire premise of Heller (the above case).  Washington D.C. municipal code required handguns be kept in a non-functional state, and they had to remain in the home. That law was struck down as extremely unconstitutional. Therefore, exactly what you're proposing is also extremely unconstitutional. You're talking about not having a reason to carry a gun in civilized society. There's two points to that:

1. You do not require a "need" to exercise any Constitutional or god-given right.

2. I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need guns. That is far from the case.

I welcome you to tell every would-be rape victim, would-be kidnapping victim, would-be murder victim, that they didn't need the gun they utilized to defend themselves; that they shouldn't have had that gun to protect themselves. Better yet, why not read a first-hand account from a guy that DID use a gun to defend himself in a home invasion?

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____Ask_a_guy_who_defended_himself_in_a_home_invasion_anything__Well__almost_anything_/5-1638294/?page=1

 

We can play the "what if" game for a long time man. The chances of having a car accident are slim, but we still wear seat belts every time we drive (or I hope we do). The chances of our house catching fire are slim, but we still have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. The chances of our house being invaded while we sleep are slim, but we still secure all entry ways before we go to sleep.

1 minute ago, HomerS said:

 

So you're saying you don't need a gun, but you want to carry a highly effective deadly weapon just for fun? It's not a damn Gucci purse you wear as a fashion item it's a weapon that if you carry it you're prepared to use it on whatever you want to use it on.

No, I'm saying that you don't need to carry a gun. You're free to do whatever you please. You have no right to tell me what I can and can't carry, and that's the bottom line. 

Just now, Hastings said:

 

In my opinion, Scalia was one of the best SCOTUS justices who actually let good old common sense in many decisions (even though sometimes I didn't share his position). And there's absolutely nothing wrong or illogical in his reasoning quoted above by @TA120. Limiting Second Amendment to muskets and organised military formations seems like... Like banning right-wing media to protect the freedom of speech, yes.

 

There's absolutely no reason to restrict my free will in  a civilized society if I don't do harm to anyone. Maybe there's no reason to carry a baseball bat in the trunk of my car if I don't play baseball either?

 

I see what you're saying. I really do. But here's my issue with that. You may not be a man who's prepared to, or planning on killing someone. But you have to think about the masses.

1 hour ago, HomerS said:

 

I see what you're saying. I really do. But here's my issue with that. You may not be a man who's prepared to, or planning on killing someone. But you have to think about the masses.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

3 minutes ago, TA120 said:

I did bro. What you're talking about (the restriction of where you may or may not possess a handgun) is the entire premise of Heller (the above case).  Washington D.C. municipal code required handguns be kept in a non-functional state, and they had to remain in the home. That law was struck down as extremely unconstitutional. Therefore, exactly what you're proposing is also extremely unconstitutional. You're talking about not having a reason to carry a gun in civilized society. There's two points to that:

1. You do not require a "need" to exercise any Constitutional or god-given right.

2. I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need guns. That is far from the case.

I welcome you to tell every would-be rape victim, would-be kidnapping victim, would-be murder victim, that they didn't need the gun they utilized to defend themselves; that they shouldn't have had that gun to protect themselves. Better yet, why not read a first-hand account from a guy that DID use a gun to defend himself in a home invasion?

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____Ask_a_guy_who_defended_himself_in_a_home_invasion_anything__Well__almost_anything_/5-1638294/?page=1

 

We can play the "what if" game for a long time man. The chances of having a car accident are slim, but we still wear seat belts every time we drive (or I hope we do). The chances of our house catching fire are slim, but we still have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. The chances of our house being invaded while we sleep are slim, but we still secure all entry ways before we go to sleep.

Yes, but you can't kill someone with a seat belt if you were to snap. But you're bearing arms to counter other people bearing arms. And this is why I want gun restrictions. You shouldn't have to counter people exercising their "rights".

33 minutes ago, HomerS said:

Yes, but you can't kill someone with a seat belt if you were to snap. But you're bearing arms to counter other people bearing arms. And this is why I want gun restrictions. You shouldn't have to counter people exercising their "rights".

But if you restrict guns, they'll obtain them regardless through the black market that Hystery and I discussed. Which at that point, you've taken guns from the law abiding citizens and now the criminals are still obtaining them.

 

(Also note that Thomas Jefferson did not actually make this quote, but he included it into his writing).

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 minute ago, TA120 said:

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

 

So we're slaves if we don't carry killing machines on our hip? Great. Although I do see the danger of our government of our government restricting all of our rights. However you do have to ask yourself the odds of that. But as me and others have said in the past. You can't live your life off of "what if's".

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

But if you restrict guns, they'll obtain them regardless through the black market that Hystery and I discussed. Which at that point, you've taken guns from the law abiding citizens and now the criminals are still obtaining them.

 

 

Yes however the only the most determined criminals would. Not common street criminals. I mean look at the guns we outlawed. Do you see most criminals owning them? I sure don't.

3 minutes ago, HomerS said:

Yes however the only the most determined criminals would. Not common street criminals. I mean look at the guns we outlawed. Do you see most criminals owning them? I sure don't.

 

A majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, statistically speaking.

Quote

 

So we're slaves if we don't carry killing machines on our hip? Great. Although I do see the danger of our government of our government restricting all of our rights. However you do have to ask yourself the odds of that. But as me and others have said in the past. You can't live your life off of "what if's".

 

 

I'd enjoy seeing you and those with the same mindset debate with Thomas Jefferson, a shame he's gone.

1 hour ago, HomerS said:

 

So we're slaves if we don't carry killing machines on our hip? Great. Although I do see the danger of our government of our government restricting all of our rights. However you do have to ask yourself the odds of that. But as me and others have said in the past. You can't live your life off of "what if's".

 

Yes however the only the most determined criminals would. Not common street criminals. I mean look at the guns we outlawed. Do you see most criminals owning them? I sure don't.

You're right, you can't live life full of what-ifs. For those of us that do carry or otherwise possess a firearm for use in a defensive posture, we aren't scared. We're comfortable because we know that we do have the means and ways to protect ourselves from anybody that wants to cause us harm; and trust me, there's plenty of those people out in the world, none the less in our country, state, and community. Before you were talking about how likely we are to be victimized in or outside of our home. Here's some interesting statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice from 1974 to 1985:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives.

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime.

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once.

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf

Those numbers are high as hell. 83% of Americans WILL be the victim of some sort of violent crime, attempted or completed, throughout the course of their life. Crimes that leave people mentally and emotionally traumatized for life, crimes that may severely disfigure someone physically, or may leave them face-down in a drainage ditch dead. And just to think, eight out of ten Americans will experience that terror at least once in their life.

 

More interesting stats from the DOJ:

 

• 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.
• A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.”
• A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year.

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf

 

When you have a minute, please read over http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general. There's surprising information on there as to where felons obtain firearms, violent crime statistics, defensive gun usage, and so forth.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TA120

2 minutes ago, TA120 said:

You're right, you can't live life full of what-ifs. For those of us that do carry or otherwise possess a firearm for use in a defensive posture, we aren't scared. We're comfortable because we know that we do have the means and ways to protect ourselves from anybody that wants to cause us harm; and trust me, there's plenty of those people out in the world, none the less in our country, state, and community. Before you were talking about how likely we are to be victimized in or outside of our home. Here's some interesting statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice from 1974 to 1985:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives.

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime.

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once.

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf

Those numbers are high as hell. 83% of Americans WILL be the victim of some sort of violent crime, attempted or completed, throughout the course of their life. Crimes that leave people mentally and emotionally traumatized for life, crimes that may severely disfigure someone physically, or may leave them face-down in a drainage ditch dead. And just to think, eight out of ten Americans will experience that terror at least once in their life.

 

Need I remind you that that was 40 YEARS AGO. We've improved since then. Get me some updated facts.

1 hour ago, HomerS said:

 

Need I remind you that that was 40 YEARS AGO. We've improved since then. Get me some updated facts.

 

1 hour ago, TA120 said:

 

 

• 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.
• A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.”
• A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year.

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf

 

Statistics aren't my thing, but you're more than welcome to compare that to the population and break it down into percents. 

 

My point is this: we can argue numbers all we want. Crime will always persist, and when crime persists, the People require a first-line defense in order to prevent victimization. What scares the hell out of  me isn't the three hundred some million firearms owned by other Americans, nor walking by other Americans carrying a firearm, concealed or open. What scares the hell out of me is not having a gun if and when I'm attacked, therefore being deprived of my basic human right to protect my own life and left at the mercy of an attacker who has full and complete power and control over me. When it comes to protection, it isn't a game of numbers. It's the fact that innocent Americans are raped, kidnapped, robbed, or murdered, and they have no means to defend themselves because "better for thee, not for me" politicians believe that they know what's best for the American People while sitting behind their desk in Washington, surrounded by armed security.

 

You have the right to not possess a firearm because of your beliefs. I whole heartedly respect that decision, and will go so far to disagree with those that say everyone should be forced to own a firearm. We have the freedom of choice in America, and that's a beautiful thing. However I, and millions of other fellow Americans, respectfully ask that you respect our right to own firearms, and the right to carry those firearms in the interest of life and liberty.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TA120

4 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That's not how black market sales work. The idea behind a black market is for customers to be able to purchase items that have been outlawed.

 

4 hours ago, Hastings said:

@TheDivineHustleis spot on on the black market's mechanics

 

Yes, except that no, not at all. There's a black market for car parts. Does that mean car parts are outlawed? Of course not. There's a black market for a lot of things that aren't outlawed. Hell, here's the definition of black market, just for you two guys:

 

"Economic activity that takes place outside government-sanctioned channels. Black market transactions usually occur “under the table” to let participants avoid government price controls or taxes."

 

That's all it is. And if you make guns available for all civilians like that, you can be sure as hell that some of them are going to be sold hand to hand from civilian to civilian like that, until they end in the hands of a criminal or a terrorist. That's already what happens right now, with just very few guns in circulation, imagine if the market was swarmed with them.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by Hystery

1 hour ago, TA120 said:

My point is this: we can argue numbers all we want. Crime will always persist, and when crime persists, the People require a first-line defense in order to prevent victimization.

 

Now this I agree on. What I want with gun regulations is to take these guns away from the criminals with bad intentions. I don't want to take your guns away. If you're in fear of these criminals with guns than the system has failed (shocker I know). That's what I want gun regulations for. Now with taking guns away from these criminals would take your guns away as well. However with guns only obtainable via the black market crime involving guns would be much less of an issue. That's just my perspective.

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

 

Yes, except that no, not at all. There's a black market for car parts. Does that mean car parts are outlawed? Of course not. There's a black market for a lot of things that aren't outlawed. Hell, here's the definition of black market, just for you two guys:

 

"Economic activity that takes place outside government-sanctioned channels. Black market transactions usually occur “under the table” to let participants avoid government price controls or taxes."

 

That's all it is. And if you make guns available for all civilians like that, you can be sure as hell that some of them are going to be sold hand to hand from civilian to civilian like that, until they end in the hands of a criminal or a terrorist. That's already what happens right now, with just very few guns in circulation, imagine if the market was swarmed with them.

Come on man, let's be real here. What do you think the black market makes most of its money? I also encourage you to look up the literal definition of a black market. It is exactly: 

 

1. The illegal business of buying or selling currency or goods banned by a government or subject to governmental control, such as price controls or rationing.

2. A place where such illegal business is carried on.

In the example that you provided with the car parts, in a black market, people would attempt to purchase otherwise illegal car parts and modifications.

3 hours ago, HomerS said:

 

Need I remind you that that was 40 YEARS AGO. We've improved since then. Get me some updated facts.

 

 

Considering the fact that crime is on the rise in the US, I'd say those statistics are probably about the same, if not worse.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Come on man, let's be real here. What do you think the black market makes most of its money? I also encourage you to look up the literal definition of a black market. It is exactly: 

 

1. The illegal business of buying or selling currency or goods banned by a government or subject to governmental control, such as price controls or rationing.

2. A place where such illegal business is carried on.

 

And that definition is exactly what I said above. A black market makes its money on anything, banned or not banned. So yes, swarming the regular market with weapons will inevitably grow the black market offer through civilian to civilian transaction, and therefore will increase the chances for a criminal or a terrorist to get their hands on one of them.

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by Hystery

14 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

And that definition is exactly what I said above. A black market makes its money on anything, banned or not banned. So yes, swarming the regular market with weapons will inevitably grow the black market offer through civilian to civilian transaction, and therefore will increase the chances for a criminal or a terrorist to get their hands on one of them.

That's not what a black market is, friend. The item has to be illegal, otherwise it's not being black marketed it's just being sold. 

20 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

 

Yes, except that no, not at all. There's a black market for car parts. Does that mean car parts are outlawed? Of course not. There's a black market for a lot of things that aren't outlawed. Hell, here's the definition of black market, just for you two guys:

 

"Economic activity that takes place outside government-sanctioned channels. Black market transactions usually occur “under the table” to let participants avoid government price controls or taxes."

 

That's all it is. And if you make guns available for all civilians like that, you can be sure as hell that some of them are going to be sold hand to hand from civilian to civilian like that, until they end in the hands of a criminal or a terrorist. That's already what happens right now, with just very few guns in circulation, imagine if the market was swarmed with them.

 

Your definition is correct, but your interpretation is a bit not.

 

The black market offers stolen car parts. They are not subject to any government control or regulation (well maybe in France or in the EU they are, but not here), they are simply cheaper. This example is incorrect. I do not buy a black-market gun to save a buck, I buy it because I can't do it legally. Either guns are outlawed completely or I can't buy it without a permit, doesn't matter to me.

 

Yes, legalized gun trade would increase the amount of guns on the black market. However, the complete ban of any and all guns would not shut the black market down, it would only raise the prices, and law abiding civs at the same time would have to pray and hope for the best.

 

Maybe you could enforce gun ban in a small country with a well-developed surveillance network. In the US... Doubt that. Who would enforce gun control in Mexico to prevent those guns sneaking through the border?

 

I mean, like. Heroin is banned. Would you tell me that it isn't sold anywhere?

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 20178 yr by Hastings

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That's not what a black market is, friend. The item has to be illegal, otherwise it's not being black marketed it's just being sold. 

 

No, it doesn't have to be illegal, anything that is under control by the government but sold outside of that circle is black market. The definition you yourself quoted says that.