We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[Full-Auto]

It was inane.
If a gun were a condom, would we hand them out in schools?
Just stupid.

One is a right.


ITS THAT SIMPLE..............

Freedom of religion is a right. That doesn't mean you can marry more than one woman or slaughter goats in your apartment.

LOL Talk about undermining your own argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

One is a right.


ITS THAT SIMPLE..............

Freedom of religion is a right. That doesn't mean you can marry more than one woman or slaughter goats in your apartment.

LOL Talk about undermining your own argument.

really? Do you know what my argument is?

 

[Full-Auto]

Freedom of religion is a right. That doesn't mean you can marry more than one woman or slaughter goats in your apartment.

LOL Talk about undermining your own argument.

really? Do you know what my argument is?

Incoherent?

 

[The T]

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.

I'd be willing to bet you are one that would enjoy a VAT on top of the already oppressive Tax Code...just a hunch.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Simple yes or no question: Do we have a gun violence problem in America?

Civil rights can’t be preempted because one might misuse them. One has the right to speak, unlicensed and unregistered; if he crosses the line and yells Fire! in a crowed theater, it’s at that point he’s subject to punitive measures, not before.

Gun violence has little to do with guns; the cause is difficult to ascertain and the remedy even more difficult – that people are unable or unwilling to address the actual causes of gun violence doesn’t justify preempting a right.

Actually, I am simply noting that when I illustrate the effect of treating guns like cars, those that advocate the positions that we do so have little to say about it.

Perhaps for good reason: it’s idiocy to ‘treat’ guns like cars.

 

[The T]

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.

Simple yes or no question: Do we have a gun violence problem in America?

Civil rights can’t be preempted because one might misuse them. One has the right to speak, unlicensed and unregistered; if he crosses the line and yells Fire! in a crowed theater, it’s at that point he’s subject to punitive measures, not before.

Gun violence has little to do with guns; the cause is difficult to ascertain and the remedy even more difficult – that people are unable or unwilling to address the actual causes of gun violence doesn’t justify preempting a right.

Actually, I am simply noting that when I illustrate the effect of treating guns like cars, those that advocate the positions that we do so have little to say about it.

Perhaps for good reason: it’s idiocy to ‘treat’ guns like cars.

IT would be nice to know whom the Hell you were quoting...

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I have no problem with that....get a license for carrying it in public...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did anyone miss that this idiot also wants to end the licensing of hunters?

lolol

I doubt he's an idiot, I suspect his vocation - at least his advocation - is guns and he's scared to death THEY will come and take his toys or livelihood away.
Clearly he doesn't give one shit about those who will suffer as a result of gun violence.

I haven't read any fear in M14's post, a simple question with a comparison.


It's certainly not him in this thread who's trying to make an intellectual debate turn into an emotional diatribe.

Grow up Drock. There are consequences to our libertarian gun laws, suggesting 14 doesn't give a shit about such consequences is hardly a diatribe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

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!

One might argue the right to vote doesn't require an ID.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL Talk about undermining your own argument.

really? Do you know what my argument is?

Incoherent?

Not if you have an IQ above that of a toaster oven.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Revolvers do not fail to feed. Autos do.
Revolvers do not fail to extract. Autos do.
Revolvers do not stovepipe. Autos do.
Revolvers do not fail to cycle. Autos do.

If you are not well-practiced in the drills necessary to deal with each of these issues, then you want a revolver.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

I see that you do not buy into the argument that guns should be treated like cars.
Be sure to mention this to the next person you see that offers that idea.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I doubt he's an idiot, I suspect his vocation - at least his advocation - is guns and he's scared to death THEY will come and take his toys or livelihood away.
Clearly he doesn't give one shit about those who will suffer as a result of gun violence.

I haven't read any fear in M14's post, a simple question with a comparison.


It's certainly not him in this thread who's trying to make an intellectual debate turn into an emotional diatribe.

Grow up Drock. There are consequences to our libertarian gun laws, suggesting 14 doesn't give a shit about such consequences is hardly a diatribe.

It's also unsupportable and a childish attempt to avoid the issue at hand.
But please - carry on.

 

[eflatminor]

But a gun isn't nuclear waste. A gun isn't a car. A gun isn't a big-screen TV.

Sorry to break in to your debate here, but I just had to point out that you're right, a gun isn't any of those things. On the other hand, none of those things are was a gun is, an inalienable right. And for damn good reason...but that's another argument for another day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One might argue the right to vote doesn't require an ID.

True.

Whether Second Amendment rights or voting rights, it’s incumbent upon the government to demonstrate a compelling interest in any restrictions, and evidence in support. The government can’t restrict gun ownership because one might commit a crime, nor can it restrict voting rights because one might commit fraud. Indeed, unlike gun rights, voting is a fundamental right, subject to a higher standard of review.

Revolvers do not fail to feed. Autos do.
Revolvers do not fail to extract. Autos do.
Revolvers do not stovepipe. Autos do.
Revolvers do not fail to cycle. Autos do.

Yes, but no revolver is a 1911

I win.

 

[Full-Auto]

really? Do you know what my argument is?

Incoherent?

Not if you have an IQ above that of a toaster oven.

Then pick a spot on the map and stay there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Incoherent?

Not if you have an IQ above that of a toaster oven.

Then pick a spot on the map and stay there.

I wouldn't want you to redo your hair.

 

[eflatminor]

Yes, but no revolver is a 1911

I win.

Oh yea...

Truth is, I like revolvers too.

 

[The T]

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!

One might argue the right to vote doesn't require an ID.

And YOU would BE the sole voter.

 

[The Rabbi]

That Model 41 is an abomination.