Lets treat cars and guns exactly alike; Reigster/License/Insurance mandates!

[OODA_Loop]

Or, are you guys gonna argue that anything not specifically mentioned should be handled only by the states. Thus, gun bans, legal gay marriage acts, legal weed and legal abortion are all perfectly fine if the state wants it?

Because thats my stance. If the state wants it, they should be able to do it so long as it doesn't violate federal law.

Well, what you suggest would violate federal law, wouldn't it, since the Constitution is federal law.

SCOTUS has already ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states anyway.

California bans assault rifles. Yet, has been ruled Constitutional. How does that work?

Roberti-Roos Ban has never been appealed to nor reviewed by SCOTUS.

 

[RDD_1210]

How bout this? Treat guns exactly like cars; no worse, no better.

To carry a gun anywhere outside your home, you must:

1- Have a license. If you drive a car without license, you go to jail. Lets make it the same with a gun. Must have proof with you.

2- Must register the car. Many states dont require gun registry. But do for cars. Make all guns be registered with the state, just like a car. Must have proof with you.

3- Gun Insurance. Yep. You must have liability insurance on the gun. Just like a car. If you accidentally shoot someone, you pay up...er, well, the insurance company pays up. Get caught outside your home with a gun, and no insurance? Go to jail, just like a car.



You can buy a car without a license, park it in your driveway, not register it, and carry no insurance on it, and its legal. You just cant drive it off your property.

Treat guns the same. Buy your guns for your home.

But take them anywhere off your property, and you must have a license, registration and insurance, just like a car.

Afterall, a car, like a gun....is just a tool, not a killing machine, unless being operated by the wrong person.

Fair enough?

I think there is some merit to this. It's at least a good place to start a conversation about sensible regulation. It's not preventing responsible people from owning guns but it does put tighter gudielines on people who just aren't responsible or capable/mature of owning deadly weapons from being able to possess them.

Thanks for bringing a reasonable suggestion to the table but you have to know that this site is made up of 99% closed minded selfish assholes who can't even begin to consider the concept of compromise and open discussion.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Thanks for bringing a reasonable suggestion to the table but you have to know that this site is made up of 99% closed minded selfish assholes who can't even begin to consider the concept of compromise and open discussion.

Yes they wont compromise thier rights based on the acts of the criminally insane.

Open discussion starts with the man not the inanimate object.

 

[RDD_1210]

How bout this? Treat guns exactly like cars; no worse, no better.

How about this:

FUCK OFF.

Guns are protected by the Bill of Rights. Cars aren't.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility ......

Calm down nutbag. Your precious guns are upsetting domestic tranquility. Preventing nut jobs from owning deadly weapons is hardly infringing on your rights.

Then again, you are an insane asshole who probably isn't mature enough to own a deadly weapon anyway, so I can see why you'd be so upset.

 

[RDD_1210]

Thanks for bringing a reasonable suggestion to the table but you have to know that this site is made up of 99% closed minded selfish assholes who can't even begin to consider the concept of compromise and open discussion.

Yes they wont compromise thier rights based on the acts of the criminally insane.

Open discussion starts with the man not the inanimate object.

So what's the problem with putting restrictions on WHO can own guns?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Thanks for bringing a reasonable suggestion to the table but you have to know that this site is made up of 99% closed minded selfish assholes who can't even begin to consider the concept of compromise and open discussion.

Yes they wont compromise thier rights based on the acts of the criminally insane.

Open discussion starts with the man not the inanimate object.

So what's the problem with putting restrictions on WHO can own guns?

We have those. We don't have penalities that make people accountable.

If you commit a crime of force with a gun after due process you should be locked and pay at hard labor for life. If someone dies, you need to die.

It is that simple.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How bout this? Treat guns exactly like cars; no worse, no better.

To carry a gun anywhere outside your home, you must:

1- Have a license. If you drive a car without license, you go to jail. Lets make it the same with a gun. Must have proof with you.

2- Must register the car. Many states dont require gun registry. But do for cars. Make all guns be registered with the state, just like a car. Must have proof with you.

3- Gun Insurance. Yep. You must have liability insurance on the gun. Just like a car. If you accidentally shoot someone, you pay up...er, well, the insurance company pays up. Get caught outside your home with a gun, and no insurance? Go to jail, just like a car.



You can buy a car without a license, park it in your driveway, not register it, and carry no insurance on it, and its legal. You just cant drive it off your property.

Treat guns the same. Buy your guns for your home.

But take them anywhere off your property, and you must have a license, registration and insurance, just like a car.

Afterall, a car, like a gun....is just a tool, not a killing machine, unless being operated by the wrong person.

Fair enough?

One is a right and the other is a government granted privilege
Once you begin talking as if the second amendment is a privilege you've won half the battle then you'll have to get past the right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed part of the constitution,

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes they wont compromise thier rights based on the acts of the criminally insane.

Open discussion starts with the man not the inanimate object.

So what's the problem with putting restrictions on WHO can own guns?

We have those. We don't have penalities that make people accountable.

If you commit a crime of force with a gun after due process you should be locked and pay at hard labor for life. If someone dies, you need to die.

It is that simple.

Agreed. We need to make penalties much harsher and actually enforce the laws we have. Then we can truly see where the holes are in the system. Can we agree on that?

 

[OODA_Loop]

So what's the problem with putting restrictions on WHO can own guns?

We have those. We don't have penalities that make people accountable.

If you commit a crime of force with a gun after due process you should be locked and pay at hard labor for life. If someone dies, you need to die.

It is that simple.

Agreed. We need to make penalties much harsher and actually enforce the laws we have. Then we can truly see where the holes are in the system. Can we agree on that?

Agreed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

we have those. We don't have penalities that make people accountable.

If you commit a crime of force with a gun after due process you should be locked and pay at hard labor for life. If someone dies, you need to die.

It is that simple.

agreed. We need to make penalties much harsher and actually enforce the laws we have. Then we can truly see where the holes are in the system. Can we agree on that?

agreed.

ditto

 

[RDD_1210]

See....compromise and sensible regulation IS possible.

 

[OODA_Loop]

See....compromise and sensible regulation IS possible.

Don't get too lathered up.

It is not a compromise to enforce existing law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

See....compromise and sensible regulation IS possible.

Don't get too lathered up.

It is not a compromise to enforce existing law.

You beat me to it. unless it was his view before that existing laws should not be enforced, then it would be compromise.

 

[saveliberty]

Cars and guns huh? You forgot people...

 

[RDD_1210]

See....compromise and sensible regulation IS possible.

Don't get too lathered up.

It is not a compromise to enforce existing law.

It is when people cry at ANY mention of gun control. Even if those changes are just to the penalties and enforcement, those are still changes that need to be made.

 

[FJO]

How bout this? Treat guns exactly like cars; no worse, no better.

To carry a gun anywhere outside your home, you must:

1- Have a license. If you drive a car without license, you go to jail. Lets make it the same with a gun. Must have proof with you.

2- Must register the car. Many states dont require gun registry. But do for cars. Make all guns be registered with the state, just like a car. Must have proof with you.

3- Gun Insurance. Yep. You must have liability insurance on the gun. Just like a car. If you accidentally shoot someone, you pay up...er, well, the insurance company pays up. Get caught outside your home with a gun, and no insurance? Go to jail, just like a car.



You can buy a car without a license, park it in your driveway, not register it, and carry no insurance on it, and its legal. You just cant drive it off your property.

Treat guns the same. Buy your guns for your home.

But take them anywhere off your property, and you must have a license, registration and insurance, just like a car.

Afterall, a car, like a gun....is just a tool, not a killing machine, unless being operated by the wrong person.

Fair enough?

How about

1. No

2. No

3. No

This is the dumbest fucking argument I've heard yet, by the way, on this subject. You have a Constitutional right to bear arms. No such right exists to drive an automobile.

By the way, is this proposal going around on the left wing Web sites and social media, because a very "liberal" buddy of mine back home just posed this exact same thing to me earlier today?

Dumb, to be sure.

But remember the Founding Fathers had no idea that there ever will be four-wheeled machines that can travel ten times faster than the fastest horse they ever rode on.

Nor did they ever dream (nightmare) that there ever will be weapons that can discharge 500 or more bullets while they reload their musket.

Food for thought: If they had had any idea what present day is like, would they have written an amendment similar to the Second, relating to automobiles?

Would they have written the Second?

 

[bucs90]

We never needed permission in the old days to ride a damn horse. Or row a boat. We never needed permission to ride a bicycle, or skateboard, or jog down the street. Transportation has always been a right....until cars. Then, the government (aka, the people) decided "OH shit, cars are very dangerous, better make sure we only allow people fit to operate them to do so" and they made it a "priviledge" that can be taken or granted.

Yet, when we went from common civilians owning a musket..or revolver............to owning a weapon of war like an AK47 or AR15, we never jumped to the same conclusion of "Oh shit, these assault rifles are way more deadly than a pistol or hunting rifle, we better take some common sense approaches to safeguard".

No, we saw cars being so dangerous we needed to regulate the right to operate one in public. But an AK47? Hell no!!! Those are fine haha!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hmmmm. Yep, you guys got me. You're right. The Constitution doesnt say anything about cars.

Because...the Founder rode around on horses. Cars didnt exist. They probably couldnt even fathom the thought of a car or airplane.

And, I bet they couldnt fathom anything other than muskets and cannons.......much less AK47s or M4s that fire 30 rounds in 10 seconds.

See how that works? You guys have to stop trying to govern like we are living in the 1790's still.

OH, guess what? The Constitution doesnt say anything about child porn or heroine or crack cocaine or abortions either. Should all that be legal?

You always run out of gas so quickly.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yet, when we went from common civilians owning a musket..or revolver............to owning a weapon of war like an AK47 or AR15, we never jumped to the same conclusion of "Oh shit, these assault rifles are way more deadly than a pistol or hunting rifle, we better take some common sense approaches to safeguard".

What common sense approaches to safeguard do you have in mind ?

 

[boedicca]

Okay Moonbats, let's regulate CARS the way Guns are regulated. I doubt you'd really like this, but it's consistent with what you substitute for logic.

I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:

To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.

To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos.

For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.

Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime. There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.

Federal Automobile Licensees must agree to submit to 24/7/365, unannounced, unscheduled searches of their entire homes, businesses and any relates properties and personal effects to be named later.

Then you will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street. Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education. Also, not all states will accept all licenses. You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted. It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through. Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all. Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing....

(snip)

Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people. This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.


http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns