We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[Mad Scientist]

Just about every rabid gun owner I've ever talked to, seems to have delusions of stopping some imaginary crime with their gun and them being a hero.

Just about every rabid gun grabber I've ever talked to seems to have delusions of making society safe by removing our Constitutionally Protected Right to Bear Arms.
Bystander with gun stops Palm Bay bank robbery

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since anywhere between the gun shop and your home is public property you seem to have undermined your own argument.

1: Not necessarily, for several reasons
2: The licensing/regustration applies to only use/operation, not ownership/posession/transportation, on public property.

So, I have undermined nothing.

Bullshit
If you take a car from the dealership to your house, you are on public property.

If you DRIVE the car. Thats operation/use.

If you take a gun from the dealer to your house, you are on public property.

That's transportation, not operation/use.

You use a gun any time you carry one.

No.. you TRANSPORT it.
And, in your car, in, say, your trunk, you are not carrying it - you are, inarguably, transporting it.

This is a stupid weak argument. The whole analogy is dumb. A car isnt a gun. Their use is very different. Their place in society is very different.

So... you disagree with those that believe that guns shoudl be treated the same as cars.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does this mean we could take away guns from people who use them while drunk or in other irresponsible manners?

Boy I hope so.

Just about every rabid gun owner I've ever talked to, seems to have delusions of stopping some imaginary crime with their gun and them being a hero.

Perhaps since we are comparing guns to cars, we should discuss mental competency tests to insure potentially unstable gun buyers aren't able to obtain access to a gun.
I'd like to see some minimum mental standards for firearms possession implemented.

Stepping away from the discussion at hand, eh?

 

[Decepticon]

Gov't shouldn't register (tax) vehicles.
Gov't shouldn't register (tax) guns.

Now you're moving the goalposts. That's totally screwy, IMO. You can't run an advanced civilization like that.

No, I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm for limited gov't power. No one is any safer just because the gov't charges you a fee to do something.

So, no one is safer because government inspects meat and food products?

Want to revamp the gun laws? How about this?

In order to maintain a well regulated militia in compliance with the 2nd amendment, anyone who OWNS a gun can be called to serve in the armed forces.

How about that? You want to own a gun? Fine. Then you have to put your ass on the line for the freedom you say you want to protect.

How's that sound?

 

[Nosmo King]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

Does this mean that only hunters would have to register guns?

 

[rightwinger]

I agree..

I doubt it.

And you should be forced to buy liability insurance on your gun in case it hurts someone

If you want to use/operate it on public property

You should also be required to have an operators license for a gun

If you want to use/operate it on public property

Your gun license should be suspended if you are caught drunk

Only if you are caught operating/usung the gun on public property while drunk.

If that is your distinction, I am fine with it

You keep you gun on your property, you can do what you want

If you remove it from your property, it has to be registered, insured, you have to have a gun owners license

This will apply to all hunters, skeet shooters, going to a shooting range, carrying for personal protection outside your home

Hey...it was your idea not mine

 

[Nosmo King]

Boy I hope so.

Just about every rabid gun owner I've ever talked to, seems to have delusions of stopping some imaginary crime with their gun and them being a hero.



Perhaps since we are comparing guns to cars, we should discuss mental competency tests to insure potentially unstable gun buyers aren't able to obtain access to a gun.
I'd like to see some minimum mental standards for firearms possession implemented.

Tests conducted by gov't no doubt? Yeah, let's give gov't more power over us and we'll just sit back and hope they don't take advantage.

Nah! Make the gun manufacturers responsible for testing mental competency! They certainly wouldn't pass up making a sale simply because some Lee Harvey wannabe trys to buy a gun!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

Does this mean that only hunters would have to register guns?

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

 

[Nosmo King]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

Does this mean that only hunters would have to register guns?

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

What if a shot was fired from private property and impacted public property (or adjoining private property)? There's "operating" and then there's "operating'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree..

I doubt it.

If you want to use/operate it on public property

If you want to use/operate it on public property

Your gun license should be suspended if you are caught drunk

Only if you are caught operating/usung the gun on public property while drunk.

If that is your distinction, I am fine with it

You keep you gun on your property, you can do what you want

If you remove it from your property, it has to be registered, insured, you have to have a gun owners license

You misunderstand.
Transportation of a car, and thus, a gun, on public property does not require licensing, registration or insurance.

 

[rightwinger]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

Does this mean that only hunters would have to register guns?

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

With the large amount of public land that is hunted your proposal will be VERY popular. In states west of the Mississippi, over 50% of the land is public land

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does this mean that only hunters would have to register guns?

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

What if a shot was fired from private property and impacted public property (or adjoining private property)? There's "operating" and then there's "operating'.

The use of the gun took place on private property, and so, under the guise presented, no license/registration/insurance is required.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does this mean that only hunters would have to register guns?

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

With the large amount of public land that is hunted your proposal will be VERY popular. In states west of the Mississippi, over 50% of the land is public land

Irrelevant to anything I have posted.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Driving a car is not a constitutional right
Owning a gun is.

 

[rightwinger]

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

With the large amount of public land that is hunted your proposal will be VERY popular. In states west of the Mississippi, over 50% of the land is public land

Irrelevant to anything I have posted.

It is very relevant to the hunting community. With the vast amount of hunting that goes on in public land, those hunters will have to carry insurance in case they fire a stray shot. They will have to register rifles now.

If you carry a gun for protection, it better be registered and insured.
You will not be very popular. Your regulations are a lot more severe than gun owners see now

 

[Nosmo King]

Only if they use their guns on public property.
Those that hunt on private land would not.

What if a shot was fired from private property and impacted public property (or adjoining private property)? There's "operating" and then there's "operating'.

The use of the gun took place on private property, and so, under the guise presented, no license/registration/insurance is required.

So, I can 'operate' a gun from my front yard and the shots can land in the school yard across the street and I would have no problems so far as a license is concerned?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Driving a car is not a constitutional right
Owning a gun is.

Unquestionably.
The issue here does not address the constitutionality of the licenseing/registration, only the argument that guns should be treated as cars.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With the large amount of public land that is hunted your proposal will be VERY popular. In states west of the Mississippi, over 50% of the land is public land

Irrelevant to anything I have posted.

It is very relevant to the hunting community.

But not to the issue at hand.

As I said - I am sure you do not agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What if a shot was fired from private property and impacted public property (or adjoining private property)? There's "operating" and then there's "operating'.

The use of the gun took place on private property, and so, under the guise presented, no license/registration/insurance is required.

So, I can 'operate' a gun from my front yard and the shots can land in the school yard across the street and I would have no problems so far as a license is concerned?

Clearly.

 

[Nosmo King]

The use of the gun took place on private property, and so, under the guise presented, no license/registration/insurance is required.

So, I can 'operate' a gun from my front yard and the shots can land in the school yard across the street and I would have no problems so far as a license is concerned?

Clearly.

The point is: if registration of cars is only a legitimate concern as long as those cars are 'operated' on public property, and guns should be regarded like cars, there is, and always will be a big gap in the logic. Guns might be discharged (or operated) on private property, but the consequences of that operation could impact public property or adjoining private property.

When a car is 'operated', the drive is within that car. When a gun is 'operated', the shooter is not physically with the consequences of that operation. Property lines are obliterated by the velocity of a round. A car is steered or 'operated' by a responsible party until the engine is turned off.