Why do liberals need cars that go 200 mph or 150 or even 100?

[JustTheFacts]

You don't but you just like having them same way gun owners like to have assault weapons. Maybe they're just loonies playing "big man" with their guns but you liberals do the same with your cars that do three times the legal limit.

Hey stupid....................if you buy a car in Europe and bring it back here, it has to be converted to comply with US standards, meaning that not only does it get pollution controls installed, but it also has downgrades on the powertrain so that it doesn't go too fast.

Not entirely true. The new trend, meaning the last 5 years or so, is for car companies to build the world car. Same vehicle for all markets. Slight changes of course but not the old days when a car had to be fedralized

 

[jesus_nihilist]

lol...a prius does not go 200 mph...

 

[Vast LWC]

You don't but you just like having them same way gun owners like to have assault weapons. Maybe they're just loonies playing "big man" with their guns but you liberals do the same with your cars that do three times the legal limit.

Great!

Then we're agreed.

Assault Weapons should have:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Just like cars.

I'm good with that.

If we have those safeguards, I'd say everyone who qualifies should own one.

The more, the better, 'cause personally I love my guns. And I meet all of those qualifications.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Great!

Then we're agreed.

Assault Weapons should have:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Just like cars.

I'm good with that.

If we have those safeguards, I'd say everyone who qualifies should own one.

The more, the better, 'cause personally I love my guns. And I meet all of those qualifications.

First you need to alter the second amendment. THINK

 

[Vast LWC]

Great!

Then we're agreed.

Assault Weapons should have:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Just like cars.

I'm good with that.

If we have those safeguards, I'd say everyone who qualifies should own one.

The more, the better, 'cause personally I love my guns. And I meet all of those qualifications.

First you need to alter the second amendment. THINK

No you most certainly don't.

The militia formed by said gun owners is supposed to be "well regulated".

I imagine that would mean said militia wouldn't include the insane, or criminals.

Therefore it would be quite useful for the quick formation of that militia to already have these people weeded out.

And it would also be useful for the formation of said militia to have a record of who would potentially be part of it.

In fact, all of the above seem to fall right in line with the purpose of the second amendment.

You see, the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms to the general citizenry, but it definitely also gives a very clear purpose for that right to exist.

 

[Vast LWC]

Now again, I'm not saying that you have to be part of a "well-regulated militia" in order to own a gun.

That is clearly NOT what the Second Amendment states.

What I AM saying, however, is that in order to qualify for the second amendment, it is your responsibility to be ready, willing and able to become part of a "well-regulated militia", and to be available and recognizable as a potential member when you are called upon to do so.

to wit:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

First you need to alter the second amendment. THINK

No you most certainly don't.

The militia formed by said gun owners is supposed to be "well regulated".

I imagine that would mean said militia wouldn't include the insane, or criminals.
.

Everyone is a criminal since everyone speeds and drives drunk - two super violent crimes that kill thousands every year.

 

[rightwinger]

My car can go up to 150 MPH

It comes in handy after a night of drinking. I can get home before I get into an accident

After a night of drinking, I usually hit the Wendy's drive through so I can eat a burger while I text and drive

 

[The Infidel]

You don't but you just like having them same way gun owners like to have assault weapons. Maybe they're just loonies playing "big man" with their guns but you liberals do the same with your cars that do three times the legal limit.

Great!

Then we're agreed.

Assault Weapons should have:

• mandatory insurance,
• licenses that are periodically renewed,
• registration with a state-wide database,
• qualification tests and a clean record to own one
• revocation of license if you show a grossly negligent or illegal train of behavior,
• revocation of license if you have a handicap (physical or mental) that prevents you from responsibly operating said device.

Just like cars.

I'm good with that.

If we have those safeguards, I'd say everyone who qualifies should own one.

The more, the better, 'cause personally I love my guns. And I meet all of those qualifications.

Both of you dummies need to read The Bill of Rights...

 

[The Infidel]

First you need to alter the second amendment. THINK

No you most certainly don't.

The militia formed by said gun owners is supposed to be "well regulated".

I imagine that would mean said militia wouldn't include the insane, or criminals.
.

Everyone is a criminal since everyone speeds and drives drunk - two super violent crimes that kill thousands every year.

Speak for yourself guy.

 

[Vast LWC]

Everyone is a criminal since everyone speeds and drives drunk - two super violent crimes that kill thousands every year.

Speeding is not a "super-violent crime", unless the person in question is speeding to the point where they have no control over their car.

For instance:
Doing 70 in a 55? Not that big a deal.
Doing 150 in a 55? Big Deal.

That is why there are varying degrees of punishment for that particular law.

As far as "Everyone drives drunk". I'm not sure why you think everyone drives drunk... For those that do, there are very harsh laws in place to punish drunk drivers.

There are no laws in place to punish drunk hunters.

 

[rightwinger]

Speeding laws are just another extension of the Nanny State telling us what to do

 

[Vast LWC]

Both of you dummies need to read The Bill of Rights...

I assume you're referring to this part:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Tell me where I am mistaken.

Does this not state that the purpose of the right to bear arms is so that "well regulated militias" can form in a timely manner?

Many anti-gun people claim that the right to bear arms only exists if someone is already part of a militia. That is clearly false.

However, the tendency of pro-gun people to pretend that the "Well Regulated Militia" portion of the second amendment does not exist, is equally incorrect.

The Bill of Rights is not saying that gun ownership is a universal right of man, the Bill of Rights is saying that Gun Ownership shall not be infringed, so that militias can be formed in times of need easily.

That is clearly the intent, as well as the actual wording, of the amendment.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
As far as "Everyone drives drunk". I'm not sure why you think everyone drives drunk... For those that do, there are very harsh laws in place to punish drunk drivers.
.

Harsh??? HAHAHA. DUI is almost always a misdemeanor and there is usually no prison time. It's criminal coddling and all you liberals support it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Speeding laws are just another extension of the Nanny State telling us what to do

HAHAHAHA. Nanny state??? Seat belt laws are nanny state since they amount to protecting people from themselves. But speed laws are about protecting people from others and that's the fundamental purpose of govt. THINK

 

[Vast LWC]

[
As far as "Everyone drives drunk". I'm not sure why you think everyone drives drunk... For those that do, there are very harsh laws in place to punish drunk drivers.
.

Harsh??? HAHAHA. DUI is almost always a misdemeanor and there is usually no prison time. It's criminal coddling and all you liberals support it.

Don't know where you live, but here in NY:

1st Offense:

• Jail – Up to 1 Year
• Fine – From $500 to $1,000
• License Suspension – 6 Month Minimum
• Pay Mandatory Surcharge
• Mandatory Alcohol Screening and/or Alcohol Evaluation

2nd Offense:

• Felony Charge (Class “E”)
• Jail – From 5 Days (Minimum) to 4 Years or,
• Community Service – 30 Days
• Fine – From $1,000 to $5,000
• License Suspension – 1 Year Minimum
• Ignition Interlock Device

3rd Offense:

• Felony Charge (Class “D”)
• Jail – From 10 Days (Minimum) to 7 Years or,
• Community Service – 60 Days
• Fine – From $2,000 to $10,000
• License Suspension – 1 Year Minimum
• Ignition Interlock Device
• Alcohol Assessment
• Pay Mandatory Surcharge

Now, if you happen to kill someone while DWI, you'll be charged with vehicular manslaughter, which is a Class C felony, and carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.

 

[rightwinger]

[
As far as "Everyone drives drunk". I'm not sure why you think everyone drives drunk... For those that do, there are very harsh laws in place to punish drunk drivers.
.

Harsh??? HAHAHA. DUI is almost always a misdemeanor and there is usually no prison time. It's criminal coddling and all you liberals support it.

Drunk drivers have not hurt anyone. They should be sent on their way. How can you punish someone before they have done anything wrong?

I personally enjoy drinking, driving, texting and eating a bologna sandwich

Who does it harm?