Assault Weapons Proper Analogy

[hazlnut]

If Ford or GM tried to sell this vehicle, promoting is as the ultimate in offensive driving with 'Military Style' upgrades.

...the MPG is too low to take on the freeway or long trips. Most big cities have banned it, it's illegal in several states, and you need a special permit in others. It's too noise for hunting. It's only real purpose is killing and maiming large groups of people.

And the kicker... if you buy it a car show, you don't have to register it or have your driving record checked.

Lastly, a ton of after market upgrades are available, which would make the vehicle illegal everywhere, but make it more efficient at killing.

The typical owner is someone who doesn't trust the Highway Patrol.


This is a proper analogy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Look the board idiot is at it again.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I can buy or assemble that and drive it on my land and never a license, approval or registration.

 

[Zander]

Is driving a vehicle a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

TROLL FAIL.

 

[bucs90]

Yep. Buy any car you want, no registration, no insurance, no license, on your own property and it is legal.

But, should you be required to have a license, registration AND insurance on a gun if you take it off your property?

 

[bucs90]

Is driving a vehicle a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

TROLL FAIL.

Is pursuit of happiness, or commerce, part of driving? Right wingers love those clauses.


BUT.....I admit, you got me on that one. No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to drive.

Because the Founders had never seen a car, and probably couldnt imagine the idea of a car, with a gas engine, propulsion, etc, etc. So they obviously wouldnt include it, just like they wouldnt include the right to fly an airplane.

And I bet back then, they couldnt fathom anything other than a musket, especially a civilian owned firearm that could fire 30 rounds within 10 seconds or less.

Oh....see what I did right there?

 

[OODA_Loop]

But, should you be required to have a license, registration AND insurance on a gun if you take it off your property?

No. You can be sued from your negligent actions and misuse of a firearm like any other inherently dangerous object.

 

[Yurt]

hazlenuts fails in another thread on the same subject, so feels compelled to create a whole new thread on the same subject

thank you so much hazlenuts

 

[OODA_Loop]

And I bet back then, they couldnt fathom anything other than a musket, especially a civilian owned firearm that could fire 30 rounds within 10 seconds or less.

Oh....see what I did right there?

Yes didn't take into consideration the settled incorporated affirmation of Heller Vs DC.

 

[PredFan]

If Ford or GM tried to sell this vehicle, promoting is as the ultimate in offensive driving with 'Military Style' upgrades.

...the MPG is too low to take on the freeway or long trips. Most big cities have banned it, it's illegal in several states, and you need a special permit in others. It's too noise for hunting. It's only real purpose is killing and maiming large groups of people.

And the kicker... if you buy it a car show, you don't have to register it or have your driving record checked.

Lastly, a ton of after market upgrades are available, which would make the vehicle illegal everywhere, but make it more efficient at killing.

The typical owner is someone who doesn't trust the Highway Patrol.


This is a proper analogy.

You're an ignorant twit, that truck doesn't even exist. It's from a fucking movie jackass.

 

[PredFan]

Look the board idiot is at it again.

He's beginning to make Truthmatters look smart.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is driving a vehicle a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

TROLL FAIL.

Is pursuit of happiness, or commerce, part of driving? Right wingers love those clauses.


BUT.....I admit, you got me on that one. No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to drive.

Because the Founders had never seen a car, and probably couldnt imagine the idea of a car, with a gas engine, propulsion, etc, etc. So they obviously wouldnt include it, just like they wouldnt include the right to fly an airplane.

And I bet back then, they couldnt fathom anything other than a musket, especially a civilian owned firearm that could fire 30 rounds within 10 seconds or less.

Oh....see what I did right there?

Semi automatic weapons can not fire 30 rounds in 10 seconds dumb ass.

 

[hazlnut]

Great analogy eh?

 

[g5000]

Great analogy eh?

I don't have the necessary seven pounds of brain damage to think it is. But keep trying!

 

[Politico]

Everyone should have one of those.

 

[g5000]

Is driving a vehicle a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

TROLL FAIL.

Is pursuit of happiness, or commerce, part of driving? Right wingers love those clauses.


BUT.....I admit, you got me on that one. No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to drive.

Because the Founders had never seen a car, and probably couldnt imagine the idea of a car, with a gas engine, propulsion, etc, etc. So they obviously wouldnt include it, just like they wouldnt include the right to fly an airplane.

And I bet back then, they couldnt fathom anything other than a musket, especially a civilian owned firearm that could fire 30 rounds within 10 seconds or less.

Oh....see what I did right there?

That's why each state licenses cars, and Congress regulates airplanes which travel across state lines.

Our Founders really did think of everything.

 

[g5000]

Pointing out cars are not mentioned in the Constitution is not very clever. They didn't mention printing presses or man-o-wars or horses and buggies, either.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Is driving a vehicle a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

TROLL FAIL.

Is pursuit of happiness, or commerce, part of driving? Right wingers love those clauses.


BUT.....I admit, you got me on that one. No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to drive.

Because the Founders had never seen a car, and probably couldnt imagine the idea of a car, with a gas engine, propulsion, etc, etc. So they obviously wouldnt include it, just like they wouldnt include the right to fly an airplane.

And I bet back then, they couldnt fathom anything other than a musket, especially a civilian owned firearm that could fire 30 rounds within 10 seconds or less.

Oh....see what I did right there?

Yes, the old and tired attempt by the simple minded to make the Constitution as limited as your brain power. Yeah, we got it. Simple. Like you....

In real life, the Constitution deals with concepts that remain current no matter how old the Constitution itself it. Transportation is still transportation whether it's by horse, sailboat or truck, train or rocket ship. The concept of a port works whether it's a sailing port or a space port.

See what I did there. Showed you up for an ass. Now run along and see if you can figure this Constitution thing out while you have all this spare time on your hands. You don't show much promise, but maybe with persistence you can overcome your lack of acumen.