New Teen Ink Book: Bullying Under Attack Barnes & Noble Amazon

Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > Right to bear arms

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Right to bear arms

Osvaldo_CThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 28, 2012 at 6:34 pm

Archy, it depends on the person. If you knew human as the good human he is, then you would give it to him. But if human wasn't so good, you knew he isn't responsible enough to bare arms.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 28, 2012 at 6:51 pm

No I know he is a good person, and Id trust him to have my back. Im just saying If i was a manager of a gun store and human walks in wanting a gun, how do I know that he will use it right and hopefully never have to use it? Keeping in mind Ive never met him before in my life.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Aug. 28, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Aw thanks guys.
 
 
Yes, but regulation of guns should be done in civil society, not by the government, because government control is blatently racist and classist. It is designed to disarm the poor and brown, while criminals can arm themselves

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Aug. 28, 2012 at 9:10 pm

watch this:
 
h ttp://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=eF4JNZM4dyM &feature=plcp
 
ht tp://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=wukAFBY Xdpk&feature=plcp

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Aug. 28, 2012 at 9:11 pm

My point was I think that citizens should be able to buy any weapon they want, up to and including nukes (not joking)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
tdnarb replied...
Aug. 29, 2012 at 12:20 am

Now, I am all for not putting gun shops in the middle of Compton and making sure that automatic rifles stay out of the hands of us citizens, but gun control laws DO NOT prevent gun violence.  Both Syria and Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws in the world.  Both places are currently experiencing a lot of crime and death related to guns.  I think that this makes one thing clear; gun laws only take guns away from citizens who are not criminals.  If corrupt people and criminals want guns, they will get guns.  They are not exactly law abiding citizens...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrowThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 29, 2012 at 10:48 am

Some questions:
 
Do all humans (ignoring criminals for the moment -- that's a different question) have the right to life? 
 
If yes, do all humans have the right to defend their right when it it is being infringed?  That is, if someone tries to kill me, do I have the right to self defense? 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
Aug. 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Junie:
Yes to both. Like I said before, you absolutely have the right to bear arms. We are not trying to ban guns. You should not, however, have the right to buy a nuclear weapon for self defense. (Seriously, human?) You should not be able to own a weapon with capabilities that far exceed self-defense; when that happens you become a danger to others.
 
tdnarb- Mexico and Syria both have weak governments an unusual social situations. Mexico has some of the most powerful criminal syndicates in the world. Syria is in the middle of a civil war (with outside nations intervening and arming the rebels). War inherently involves violence; you can't blame that on gun control laws (that can't even be practically enforced anyway). If you're going to compare gun laws internationally, compare a country who's government/political stability is comparable to United States'. Like, say, Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, or Australia (see Whiplash's post on the previous page).

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
tdnarb replied...
Aug. 29, 2012 at 8:20 pm

You missed the point. The point I was making was that bad guys will not be dettered by gun laws.  Mexico is that way BECAUSE of the bad guys.  As is Syria.  And any other middle eastern country for that matter.  We happen to border Mexico.  Thus it would make sense that even if we made all guns illegal, they would still end up in our country. (Our borders are a whole differnt issue.)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 29, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Human, What would you honestly do with an automatic rifle or a nuke. Seriously. If you had a nuke, would you have something to launch it with?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrowThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 30, 2012 at 7:06 am

Aren't you saying that "some people" should not be allowed to possess one of the most effective means of self defense? 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 30, 2012 at 2:47 pm

If you are asking me, then no that is not what Im saying. Im saying no one needs an automatic rifle for any reason whatsoever, unless you are law enforcement, military, or some type of Government agent that needs to have one. If you need an automatic rifle or anything more than a shotgun or handgun, you have more problems than you think. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrowThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 30, 2012 at 6:17 pm

I'm saying that you -- or anyone else -- shouldn't have the ability to restrict my means of self defense.  If I decide I need a fully automatic rifle (by the way, do you mean full or semi auto?) for my self-defense, or even a nuke for that matter, you have no right to say I can't get one. 
 
(Hey look, the person actually in a "far-right wing group that trains with guns"  agrees with the "outspoken left-wing radical."  What do you know?)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 30, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Talking more about Automatic than semi-automatic. Anyways, the argum,ent I always come too is, "well Im always around guns, I should be able to have any gun I wish." Does it look like I give a F***?

Really Im not here to say wether or not that you can have an automatic rifle or not. Im just saying there is no place for it. You don't need that kind of firepower. Besides what if that weapon is to get into the wrong hands?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 30, 2012 at 8:53 pm

And yes, I have no right to restrict your right to self defense, but there is nothing out there that says the government can make a law against the manufacturing of automatic rifles for civilian society. Civilians don't have need of an automatic rifle. Seriously. No one needs that much firepower, unless you are one of the three groups i mentioned previously. 
 
Besides, the government can't take that right away, however they can make a law against manufacturing automatic rifles for civilans. And If you want one, you have to have a law enforcement of military grade license. 
 
O and what is to say that rifle will be well guarded. Anyone can break into a home and steal it, while you are gone. Falls into the wrong hands, Im seeing another massacre.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
Aug. 30, 2012 at 9:16 pm

JunieSparrow- No, I'm not saying some people shouldn't have the right to self defense. I'm saying that self-defense cannot be extended to the point that one becomes a danger to others. What right do I have to tell you that you can't get a nuke? The same right I have to tell you that you can't speed, or randomly set things on fire,  or tamper with a smoke detector. Your rights end where somebody else's begin. You have quite a few rights, but you do not have the right to become a public menace.
 
tdnarb- I know Mexico is that way because of the bad guys. But the point still stands that the Mexican government, unlike the American government, is effectively incapable of enforcing any gun control laws. The situation in the US is completely different. Gun control laws didn't cause the chaos we see in Syria or Mexico. A claim like that is just illogical.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
tdnarb replied...
Aug. 31, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Of course gun laws did not cause the violence in Mexico or Syria.  But they did not do what they were intended to do which is to keep guns out of bad guys hands.  If drugs and other substances/items that are illegal make it to the United States through Mexico, what makes you think that guns will not, even if we compeltely illegalize all guns?  The fact is that no matter what, organized crime, i.e. gangs and the such, will get guns regardless of whether they can buy them here or whether they have to import them illegally from Mexico.  They certainly do it with drugs.  And the last time I checked the statistics, the majority of gun related deaths are a direct result of gangs and organized crime in the U.S.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrowThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 
Whiplash said:
 
“I'm saying no one needs an automatic rifle for any reason whatsoever, unless you are law enforcement, military, or some type of Government agent that needs to have one. If you need an automatic rifle or anything more than a shotgun or handgun, you have more problems than you think.”
 
and
 
“Civilians don't have need of an automatic rifle. Seriously. No one needs that much firepower, unless you are one of the three groups i mentioned previously.”
 
So basically you're asking what a full-auto rifle is good for. That's easy. Say three burglars come to my house. What do I grab? Maybe a shotgun first, but they hear me pump it and run out behind the wood pile. I don't want them to get away before the police show up, so what do I do? Am I going to sit next to the window covering them with 1) a pistol, 2) a shotgun, 3) a semi-auto, or 4) a full-auto?
 
Full-auto rifles have their uses. Sure, most folks use them for “spray and pray,” but that doesn't mean they aren't the best method for providing covering fire or clearing buildings.
 
Imaginedangerous said:
 
“What right do I have to tell you that you can't get a nuke? The same right I have to tell you that you can't speed, or randomly set things on fire, or tamper with a smoke detector. Your rights end where somebody else's begin. You have quite a few rights, but you do not have the right to become a public menace.”
 
You have every right to tell me I can't get a nuke, or speed, or randomly set things on fire, or tamper with a smoke detector. But what right do you have to stop me going out in my backyard and building a bonfire? As long as it's my own property I'm incinerating, I'm within my rights. Once I start destroying others' property, they have the right to defend their property. If that means they have to shoot me for burning up their cornfield, so be it. And I can tamper with the smoke detector in my bedroom all day long.
 
All right, another question for you all. Why do the “three groups” need full-auto firepower if we don't?
 
Another question: Who do you trust to decide who can own what? Will you personally certify each responsible citizen/civilian? Or do you trust such an important decision to our adored Big Brother FedGov?
 
N.zi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)





Classified guns for "sporting purposes".






All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the N.zi officials and have a background check.






Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted N.zis from the gun control law.






Gave N.zis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.






The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.






Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Oh by the way, nukes are good for deterrence. Do you think Iran would have so much trouble from the US if it actually had one? Probably it would be left alone.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Truly if the bugulars ran out behind a wood pile after they heard me pu,p a shotgun, it would probably mean that they don't have weapons, which in my case, Id walk out there and unload my shot into their asses. Not firing from a window. and What does a civilian need an automatic rifle to clear a building for? Law enforcement does that, and they carry shotguns as well. Personally, I think shotguns are better for clearing buildings.

as for the three groups, because they are protecting us, and they have the training and efficency to get it over with, more than half the time, the three groups, don't even use their weapon. They use the wonderful martial arts skills, they are taught to defend themselves. A civilian, would as you say,"spray and pray". Just because you have something doesn't mean you need to use it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 4, 2012 at 6:17 am

Guns should not be given to people who are:
 
1) Under the Influence at the time they are attempting to attain said firearm
2) Someone with mental problems that cause mood swings, irrationality, or violence.
3) Minors
4) People with a criminal record involving armed robbery, armed assault, homicide, etc.
5) People should also be forced to complete a state ordained test concerning fire-arms, their appropriate and inappropriate uses, the handling and care for of fire-arms, and should be willing to participate in a background check. 
 
Problem is, too many people already have guns.  Every firearm would have to be re-registered in order to preserve these laws, and that's extremely impractical.  So I doubt it's gonna happen anytime soon.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback