We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

I think guns should be registered for the same reasons I think cars should be registered. To prevent the unauthorized sale of stolen guns or cars.
False premise - registration prevents nothing of the sort.
But.. if you believe that guns should be treated like cars, then you belive than the only guns that need to be registered are those used on public property.

But I do not agree with the premise you propose. Private property vs. public property.
Then you disagree with the premise that guns should be treated like cars as all of the restrictions regarding cars are related to use on public property.
If so, I am sure that YOU will be sure to mention this whenever someone brings it up.
No. I own a gun and I think it should be registered. Fro my own safety, and the safety of the general public. If my gun was stolen, I would like to recover it if possible. If the gun was registered, I could then prove my ownership.
So you agree that registration of guns/cars does, in fact, NOT prevent their theft, as you claimed.

The use and operation of my gun on private or public property is not a defining issue.
But it IS the defining issue regarding the registering of cars and the licensing of drivers.
As I said, and as you seem to want to avoid admitting, is that you do NOT agree with the premise that we should treat guns the same as we treat cars.

Simply admit that you disagree with the premise, make a note to make a similar disagreement whenever someone brings up the idea, and move on.
 
Last edited:
I own a gun. No problem with people owning guns. I don't think guns laws are the solution to our problem - and only a fool would say the USA doesn't have a gun violence problem.
I think our problem stems from enforcement. You may be able to own a car under all those circumstances but you can't sell it - and that's a good thing - otherwise the illegal sale of stolen cars would run amok.
The FBI says on their website that the single largest source of illegal gun sales is
"home dealers". Anyone with a clean record can get a license to deal arms and have less than a 1% chance that they will ever be given so much as a glance by any kind of regulatory agency whatsoever. Apparently there are an awful lot of people who licenses to deal and sell off the books. Shocking to anyone?
So laws are only deterrents but if there is no enforcement, they're not even that.

Oh, and I would have no problem with registration and licensing prior to gun ownership. It could waived for those of us who received training in the military but I've seen idiots at the range point a weapon at others with the safety off while they were "chatting"! Lucky they don't blown their own danm foot off. I think a day at a range with a pro would benefit a lot of people and prevent a huge number of accidental deaths.
I'm not really sure how this addresses the topic.
Perhaps you could clarify?
Sure. You use the car analogy to support the argument there should be no registration, licensing etc... of guns. I disagree.
Incorrect.
I point out that if guns were treated the same as cars, as many people suggest, then licenses and registration would be required only under very limited and specific circumstances, all related to operation/use on public property.

If you believee that licensing of owners and registration of guns should extend beyond those specific conditions, then you disagree with the premise that guns should be treated the same as cars.
 
False premise - registration prevents nothing of the sort.
But.. if you believe that guns should be treated like cars, then you belive than the only guns that need to be registered are those used on public property.


Then you disagree with the premise that guns should be treated like cars as all of the restrictions regarding cars are related to use on public property.
If so, I am sure that YOU will be sure to mention this whenever someone brings it up.
No. I own a gun and I think it should be registered. Fro my own safety, and the safety of the general public. If my gun was stolen, I would like to recover it if possible. If the gun was registered, I could then prove my ownership.
So you agree that registration of guns/cars does, in fact, NOT prevent their theft, as you claimed.

The use and operation of my gun on private or public property is not a defining issue.
But it IS the defining issue regarding the registering of cars and the licensing of drivers.
As I said, and as you seem to want to avoid admitting, is that you do NOT agree with the premise that we should treat guns the same as we treat cars.

Simply admit that you disagree with the premise, make a note to make a similar disagreement whenever someone brings up the idea, and move on.
No. I agree that cars and guns should be registered. But not because of use on private/public property.

I think they should be registered to recover stolen items and prevent unauthorized resale of stolen property.

And I NEVER claimed that registration prevents theft.
 
Get it delivered by a licensed carrier

Illegal
:roll:
Lets take this slowly. Yes/no is all that is necessary
Do you need a license to buy a car?
Do you need a license to own a car?
Do you need a license to drive your car on private property?

Well, it is illegal. Nothing you write changes that.
You dont need a license to do the things you say. Of course that makes having hte car pretty useless.
 
No. I own a gun and I think it should be registered. Fro my own safety, and the safety of the general public. If my gun was stolen, I would like to recover it if possible. If the gun was registered, I could then prove my ownership.
So you agree that registration of guns/cars does, in fact, NOT prevent their theft, as you claimed.

The use and operation of my gun on private or public property is not a defining issue.
But it IS the defining issue regarding the registering of cars and the licensing of drivers.
As I said, and as you seem to want to avoid admitting, is that you do NOT agree with the premise that we should treat guns the same as we treat cars.

Simply admit that you disagree with the premise, make a note to make a similar disagreement whenever someone brings up the idea, and move on.
No. I agree that cars and guns should be registered. But not because of use on private/public property.
So you disagree with the premise that guns shoud be treated the same as cars.
Good by me. Make sure you disagree with all who suggest it.

I think they should be registered to recover stolen items and prevent unauthorized resale of stolen property.
And I NEVER claimed that registration prevents theft.
You said:
To prevent the unauthorized sale of stolen guns or cars.
I took that to mean theft.
Either way, you are wrong, as registration does not prevent such a thing.
 
:roll:
Lets take this slowly. Yes/no is all that is necessary
Do you need a license to buy a car?
Do you need a license to own a car?
Do you need a license to drive your car on private property?
Well, it is illegal. Nothing you write changes that.
What is illegal? Not any of the things noted above.
You dont need a license to do the things you say.
Ok.. so... if you treat guns the same as cars... you then would not need a license to...
...buy a gun
...own a gun
...use/operate a gun on private property.
Right?
 
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.

:dunno:

Your premise seems flawed. Saying one thing should require licensing, and comparing it to another thing that requires licensing, does not mean the two should be treated exactly the same. If someone were to, for example, put forth an argument that driving a car should not require a license; if someone else responded by saying, 'You need a license to fish, you should need one to drive.', it would not mean that person is advocating fishing and driving be treated the same, or even that the licensing requirements be the same.

Now, if someone has specifically argued that the licensing and registration requirements for guns and cars should be identical, that's a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case from what you've presented here.
 
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.

:dunno:
Your premise seems flawed. Saying one thing should require licensing, and comparing it to another thing that requires licensing, does not mean the two should be treated exactly the same.
-My- premise?
How is this -my- premise?

Now, if someone has specifically argued that the licensing and registration requirements for guns and cars should be identical, that's a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case from what you've presented here.
Actually, no, that is exactly what's been presented here. - that guns should be treated the same as cars.
 
Many people would argue that if you get drunk and use your gun, you should lose your gun.

BUT... those that argue that we should treat guns like we treat cars believe that the person should keep his gun, but lose his license tp use that gun on public property -- but ONLY if he was drunk and used his gun on public property.

See, you don't lose your car when you get caught driving drunk, and you don't get charged for drunk driving while parked in your garage.

Which is why I said "gun license".

It's an interesting topic of which I haven't made up my mind.
Fair enough.

I will say this though. I don't see any benefit of having a revolver vs a pistol that has a clip. Can someone fill me in on any benefit there is to a revolver?
Revolvers are simpler to operate with a significantly lower rate of malfunction and so are better for those who do not have a lot of practice/training with firearms.

Hmmmm...

If I believe what I see on TV 23:59 minutes a day, dropping a clip out of a pistol seems easier than loading bullets into 6 individual holes; less bulky, etc...

I understand the desire not to shoot one's self.
 
:roll:
Lets take this slowly. Yes/no is all that is necessary
Do you need a license to buy a car?
Do you need a license to own a car?
Do you need a license to drive your car on private property?
Well, it is illegal. Nothing you write changes that.
What is illegal? Not any of the things noted above.
You dont need a license to do the things you say.
Ok.. so... if you treat guns the same as cars... you then would not need a license to...
...buy a gun
...own a gun
...use/operate a gun on private property.
Right?

If you treated a gun like nuclear waste you would need a license to do all that. You would need a license to store it. You would need a gov't approved storage facility. You would need periodic inspections by authorities to assure compliance. Germany actually does this for guns, btw.
But a gun isn't nuclear waste. A gun isn't a car. A gun isn't a big-screen TV.
So what the fuck is the point of this argument?
 
Which is why I said "gun license".

It's an interesting topic of which I haven't made up my mind.
Fair enough.

I will say this though. I don't see any benefit of having a revolver vs a pistol that has a clip. Can someone fill me in on any benefit there is to a revolver?
Revolvers are simpler to operate with a significantly lower rate of malfunction and so are better for those who do not have a lot of practice/training with firearms.

Hmmmm...

If I believe what I see on TV 23:59 minutes a day, dropping a clip out of a pistol seems easier than loading bullets into 6 individual holes; less bulky, etc...

I understand the desire not to shoot one's self.

Dont' know much about guns, eh?
Try loading the magazine (not clip) and tell me how it's easier than loading a revolver cylinder.
 
Now you're moving the goalposts. That's totally screwy, IMO. You can't run an advanced civilization like that. :cuckoo:

Why exactly does an advanced society require that the government collect a fee to do certain things (i.e. drive, carry a gun, hunt, fish, build, etc.)?
Auto fees are collected to pay for maintaining the roads and the safety personnel who patrol them. Building permits and fees are to keep unsafe buildings from ever being built so rescue forces don't have to rush in after a collapse or unwarranted fire. Hunting and fishing license provide the funding to maintain wildlife environments and pay for the needed research to manager wildlife.

Have you lived here long?

All my life. And as a life long hunter I know what the license fees are used for. I simply say collect the tax some other way. I shouldn't have to pay government to exercise a freedom. If I do it's not a freedom at all really. I'm a flat tax person. Keep it as simple as possible for people, let government figure out how they need to divide up the money pool.
 
Last edited:
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.

:dunno:

Second Amendment. It is an enumerated right regardless where you posess a firearm. The Constitution makes NO distinction to public or private property. Operating a motor vehicle on public property is a government controlled privilege.
 
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

Moving the goalposts. Scratch a "gunner" and all of a sudden "licensing" becomes "grabbing". :cuckoo:

Same is true of rabid anti-gun freaks experience has shown that licensing means "bann" to them.

A right doesn't require a license.
 
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

Moving the goalposts. Scratch a "gunner" and all of a sudden "licensing" becomes "grabbing". :cuckoo:

Same is true of rabid anti-gun freaks experience has shown that licensing means "bann" to them.

A right doesn't require a license.
Bingo!
 
Why exactly does an advanced society require that the government collect a fee to do certain things (i.e. drive, carry a gun, hunt, fish, build, etc.)?
Auto fees are collected to pay for maintaining the roads and the safety personnel who patrol them. Building permits and fees are to keep unsafe buildings from ever being built so rescue forces don't have to rush in after a collapse or unwarranted fire. Hunting and fishing license provide the funding to maintain wildlife environments and pay for the needed research to manager wildlife.

Have you lived here long?

All my life. And as a life long hunter I know what the license fees are used for. I simply say collect the tax some other way. I shouldn't have to pay government to exercise a freedom. If I do it's not a freedom at all really. I'm a flat tax person. Keep it as simple as possible for people, let government figure out how they need to divide up the money pool.
How would you fund them then? User fees and license fees are more fair than taxing everyone so a few can enjoy hunting or fishing or driving. It seems imminently more fair than taxing everyone.
 

Forum List

Back
Top