We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[rightwinger]

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.

You differentiate between public and private property. That is your whole argument.

Most hunters use public property. So do those who carry a gun for protection.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

People with mental conditions are already prohibitedmfrom purchasing or legally owning firearms.

 

[asaratis]

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.

Stupid people can bear arms. It's a Constitutional right. Were it not, all Democrats would be disarmed.

Gun owners are not necessarily rabid. Many gun owners have successfully defended home and family with a handy, loaded firearm.

Your argument is terribly weak and opinionated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So... you disagree with those that want to treat guns the same way as we treat cars.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

True, if you kill with a car, it's usually an accident, with a gun, it's usually intentional.

Neither of those contentions is entirely true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You differentiate between public and private property. That is your whole argument.

You clearly are not paying attention. Back to ignore.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

So... you disagree with those that want to treat guns the same way as we treat cars.

I disagree with the notion that cars and guns present the same hazards, promote the same values, are operated on with the same consequences.

But if we were to equate cars and guns vis-a-vis their operation and registration, we should realize that the public/private property restrictions are unworkable.

A driver operates a car from within the car. Once a round is fired, the operator of a gun can be a couple thousand yards away from the impact. That negates property lines all together and thus the property argument.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

My point is that rights and prevleges are two very diferent things that cannot be treated the same. For example we don't have to register telephones to have free speach.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

So... you disagree with those that want to treat guns the same way as we treat cars.

I disagree with the notion that cars and guns present the same hazards, promote the same values, are operated on with the same consequences.

But if we were to equate cars and guns vis-a-vis their operation and registration, we should realize that the public/private property restrictions are unworkable.

Given that the noted restrictions for cars are all based on their use on public property and do not at all apply to their ownership/posession, or their use on private property, you then, necessarily, disagree with the notion that we should treat guns like we treat cars.

Its OK for you to admit that - you arent going to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[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.

My point is that rights and prevleges are two very diferent things that cannot be treated the same. For example we don't have to register telephones to have free speach.

I understand completely, and agree.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I think it would be a good idea for

This never receives a response.

So, an habitual drunkard, a drug addict, a felon, a paranoid schizophrenic, a wife/child beater, a sexual preditor all have the right to buy and own a gun without restrictions? Anyone of them can parade on a front lawn, yards or feet from a public sidewalk with the firearm of their choice with a speed loader or magazines of unlimited capacity; they and others, should be able to store ammunation in enormous capacities in a home in residential areas.

What happends to ammunition when exposed to fire? Might that impact the public in some manner? How many mass murders have been the product of a vehicle vis a vis a firearm? Can a car be concealed?

In re the above post, how many people are killed by speech alone? How many have been killed by a telephone?

 

[Mad Scientist]

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

That's right. People get sick from food that comes from Govt Inspected Big Agra farms not the local person with a few acres.

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.

Militias are state run not federal gov't run.

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?

I already did. But the Constitution doesn't require it and neither would I.
Military Service would be required to have Constitutionally protected rights? You have little or no understanding of the Constitution. It was written with the goal that the individual person was the sovereign (look that up) not a King or Gov't Official. That's why it says our rights come from God not a person.

 

[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.

So, an habitual drunkard, a drug addict, a felon, a paranoid schizophrenic, a wife/child beater, a sexual preditor all have the right to buy and own a gun without restrictions?

Straw. man.
No one has said any such thing, and such things are not the issue at hand.
Take your red herrings elsewhere -- and, if you think you can, address the issue at hand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

So, an habitual drunkard, a drug addict, a felon, a paranoid schizophrenic, a wife/child beater, a sexual preditor all have the right to buy and own a gun without restrictions?

Straw. man.
No one has said any such thing, and such things are not the issue at hand.
Take your red herrings elsewhere -- and, if you think you can, address the issue at hand.

Straw Man? No, a question is not a straw man argument. Let me phrase it in this way and see if you can understand:

How or should the government prevent mentally incompetent, seriously emotionally distrurbed or the violent criminal from purchasing a firearm and having one in their custody and control? Or, do you believe it is their constitutional right to own a firearm as long as they do so only on private property?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Since cars and guns wouldn't exist without people...they therefore are people (like corporations are people) I think that they should never be bought or sold. At least thats the way Willow Tree sees it:

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, an habitual drunkard, a drug addict, a felon, a paranoid schizophrenic, a wife/child beater, a sexual preditor all have the right to buy and own a gun without restrictions?

Straw. man.
No one has said any such thing, and such things are not the issue at hand.
Take your red herrings elsewhere -- and, if you think you can, address the issue at hand.

Straw Man? No, a question is not a straw man argument.

How about you ask a question that's relevant to the argument presented, rather than try to lead the conversation away from its point?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well, if you get drunk and drive, they take away your driver's license.
If you get drunk and shoot your gun, should we take away your gun license?

I mean, spot checks at the rifle ranges would go through the roof if the government can make a few bucks busting "intoxicated" owners. Imagine what they could make checking out deer leases, duck blinds, etc...

 

[Mad Scientist]

Everything is safer when the gov't controls it. Just like the Internet will be safer when SOPA passes right?

 

[gallantwarrior]

So, an habitual drunkard, a drug addict, a felon, a paranoid schizophrenic, a wife/child beater, a sexual preditor all have the right to buy and own a gun without restrictions?

Straw. man.
No one has said any such thing, and such things are not the issue at hand.
Take your red herrings elsewhere -- and, if you think you can, address the issue at hand.

Straw Man? No, a question is not a straw man argument. Let me phrase it in this way and see if you can understand:

How or should the government prevent mentally incompetent, seriously emotionally distrurbed or the violent criminal from purchasing a firearm and having one in their custody and control? Or, do you believe it is their constitutional right to own a firearm as long as they do so only on private property?

Although specific rules vary from state-to-state, the categories of persons you cite, including domestic violence, are already constrained from legally purchasing or owning firearms in many states.
So what's your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

True, if you kill with a car, it's usually an accident, with a gun, it's usually intentional.

Not really.
Thugs kill innocent people with guns. Drunks kill innocent people with cars.
And whether it is intentional or unintentional doesn't maek much difference to the dead guy.