We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Truth is, I like revolvers too.

And I as well. But I’ve never had one of my 1911s fail (all Colts, of course.)

My youngest son (15) is extremely accurate with them (the little so and so…)

 

[The T]

Truth is, I like revolvers too.

And I as well. But I’ve never had one of my 1911s fail (all Colts, of course.)

My youngest son (15) is extremely accurate with them (the little so and so…)

LEARN to use the quote function dude. Seriously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LEARN to use the quote function dude. Seriously.

You need to lighten up. Seriously.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you DRIVE the car. Thats operation/use.

That's transportation, not operation/use.

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

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

If you park the car, it must be registered. If you push the car, it must be registered.

On public property. Push it into your barn, and there's no need to register it.

Guns arent much different.

So you agree then that if we treat guns just as we treat cars, you do not need to register a gun that is used/stored on private propoerty.

For the thousandth time, the government can require you to have any car on your property registered if they so choose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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".

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

A right doesn't require a license.

So it's unconstitutional to require a group to get a permit to hold a rally or demonstration?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So it's unconstitutional to require a group to get a permit to hold a rally or demonstration?

That depends on a number of factors – such as how long a rally or demonstration will last.

No right is absolute, the courts struggle to strike a balance between individual liberty and public safety daily.

A rally can’t be stopped because it might turn violent, for example. Nor is the government required to wait until actual violence occurs.

In general the government is required to provide compelling evidence in support of its desire to preempt a given right; with regard to guns, there is no evidence that permits/licenses prevent violence. Indeed, it’s almost always law-abiding citizens who follow the laws, not the criminals who obtain guns illegally and subsequently commit a crime, permits and licenses would not prevent that. And the desire to create a ‘trail of evidence’ isn’t sufficient to justify preemption.

 

[candycorn]

Fair enough.


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.

Ahhh....I see your point.

Except what does "stovepipe" mean? I'm getting an education on the subject.

 

[candycorn]

LEARN to use the quote function dude. Seriously.

You need to lighten up. Seriously.

It would run counter to the "tough guy" image he tries to project...as he sits on his ass in front of his monitor 8 hours a day.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Ahhh....I see your point.

Except what does "stovepipe" mean? I'm getting an education on the subject.

In a stovepipe the ejected brass fails to clear the chamber and ends up stuck straight up, like a stovepipe.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

You sure about that?
Does this ring a bell:

Or do the average 93 people killed per day (2009) not really count? Perhaps this is just colored by your dislike of guns.


List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To the OP, why not tell us why you are even brining up this OP M14 because it seems clear to me that even you do not agree with it yourself. The idea is asinine and more so when you are taking it to the extreme. I believe that when people bring this up they are simply referring to the treatment that we give driving as it relates to a privilege. That alone, as has been pointed out makes this argument bunk since owning a gun is a right, not a privilege.

 

[FA_Q2]

Indeed, unlike gun rights, voting is a fundamental right, subject to a higher standard of review.

Please explain how voting trumps gun rights as I am sure that they are clearly spelled out in the same document without distinction over which right is 'better' or more 'fundamental' than the other. IMHO, rights do not have tiers that make some more fundamental than others. A right is a right, period.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep mandatory liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners?
Mandatory testing/licencsing before operating a gun?

methinks the OP was a bit simplistic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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.

Um...
You -do- know that you're argung that strict scrutiny applies to gun rights and that strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review - right?

And in doing so, your statement that "Indeed, unlike gun rights, voting is a fundamental right, subject to a higher standard of review" is, well, hogwash.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you park the car, it must be registered. If you push the car, it must be registered.

On public property. Push it into your barn, and there's no need to register it.

Guns arent much different.

So you agree then that if we treat guns just as we treat cars, you do not need to register a gun that is used/stored on private propoerty.

For the thousandth time, the government can require you to have any car on your property registered if they so choose.

:sigh:
Please let us know when you can be relevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed, unlike gun rights, voting is a fundamental right, subject to a higher standard of review.

Please explain how voting trumps gun rights as I am sure that they are clearly spelled out in the same document without distinction over which right is 'better' or more 'fundamental' than the other. IMHO, rights do not have tiers that make some more fundamental than others. A right is a right, period.

THis is not correct. The Supremes have given some rights the standard of "strict scruitiny," meaning that every law is considered invalid unless the state can show a compelling interest. Gun rights do not fall into that category. At least not yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Ahhh....I see your point.

Except what does "stovepipe" mean? I'm getting an education on the subject.

When the empty case gets caught in the action, sticking straight up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep mandatory liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners?
Mandatory testing/licencsing before operating a gun?
methinks the OP was a bit simplistic.

Methinks you do not understand the full extent of the comparison - which is odd, given that it was laid out so very clearly.

The only time licensing/registration/insurance/whatever would apply is if the gun is used/operated on public property.

Puchase/ownership/storage/transportation would require no such thing.
Operation/use on private property would require no such thing.

Not sure how you missed that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Indeed, unlike gun rights, voting is a fundamental right, subject to a higher standard of review.

Please explain how voting trumps gun rights as I am sure that they are clearly spelled out in the same document without distinction over which right is 'better' or more 'fundamental' than the other. IMHO, rights do not have tiers that make some more fundamental than others. A right is a right, period.

THis is not correct. The Supremes have given some rights the standard of "strict scruitiny," meaning that every law is considered invalid unless the state can show a compelling interest. Gun rights do not fall into that category. At least not yet.

McDonald describes gun rights as "fundamental". Given that gun rights have been so described and that they are protected by the Constitution, there's no real way to argue that strict scrutiny does not apply.

Note that Heller struck down a gun ban w/o any reference to any level of scrutiny.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Rather than childish insults and generic talking points, maybe you could specifically address what he said and tell him why he's wrong.


But don't worry, when you don't do it I won't be let down, based on the expectations I already have of you.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yep mandatory liability insurance for gun owners just like car owners?
Mandatory testing/licencsing before operating a gun?

methinks the OP was a bit simplistic.

As long as you must insure your speech..

Then I will still cheat.