Even After Latest Attack, Liberals Refuse to Support Vehicle Control

[Contumacious]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

Cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, moron.

Cars were not invented at the time the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was written.
Neither were semi-automatic assault rifles.
It would be interesting how the founding Fathers would handle the right to bear arms if the arms of today were around in the 1700's.

It would be interesting how the Founding Fathers would have handle the creation of the Federal Government if they knew how corrupt the sons of bitches would turn out to be.


.

The would never have dissolved the Articles of Confederation.

Well, the Anti-federalists did everything in their power to warn us.


,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does it feel good to write the stupid shit you write? It must. You do it so damned often.

You must love it. You haven't put me on your ignore list. Go ahead......I dare ya......I dare ya.

 

[Contumacious]

It would be interesting how the Founding Fathers would have handle the creation of the Federal Government if they knew how corrupt the sons of bitches would turn out to be.

I think if the founders could come back from time, they would rewrite the Constitution. Only this time with big color pictures for the liberals.

I don't think their concern would be about people having guns. Their concern would be how much power we gave our federal government to rule over us. The very idea that the federal government would provide everything to the people via taxation of the working would make them want to go back to their graves.

Ray, I wish it was that simple.

The problem is that conservatives also need big color pictures.

Remember , Heller was not a great case, the conservatives allowed 7 or 8 federal regulations to remain. Bad news.


.

 

[martybegan]

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.

A gun is a device that propels a projectile down a tube via the detonation of explosive substances. That is a guns purpose. What you are talking about is application and use, which is different.

Bill Ayres and the Weather Underground built devices for the purposes of propelling projectiles via the detonation of explosive substances aimed at police, government, and military yet somehow, he is against gun control. Do you support him?

Why would I support Bill Ayers? He's an asshole.

I'm sure someone in the KKK is a fan of fire departments, but just because I am a fan of fire departments as well doesn't mean I am in the KKK.

Failure of logic.

 

[NoNukes]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

We have strict vehicle laws, what is your point?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

We have strict vehicle laws, what is your point?

Point is that all those vehicle laws don't stop drunk drivers, drivers with suspended licenses, drivers with no license, drivers that may want to use a vehicle to kill others.

The car is not the culprit.

 

[hadit]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Heck, they don't even support making all vehicles unable to travel faster than 50 kph. That would save many lives right there, but I guess it's okay to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives every year just so we can drive fast.

 

[AntonToo]

I am licensed to drive. All my vehicles are uniquely identified are registered with, and inspected by, the state. They are also insured for liability arising from their use.

I think vehicle control is just fine....what was the point of this thread again?

 

[Seawytch]

I am licensed to drive. All my vehicles are uniquely identified are registered with, and inspected by, the state. They are also insured for liability arising from their use.

I think vehicle control is just fine....what was the point of this thread again?

Transfer of ownership is also facilitated and registered by the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AntonToo]

Point is that all those vehicle laws don't stop drunk drivers, drivers with suspended licenses, drivers with no license, drivers that may want to use a vehicle to kill others.

The car is not the culprit.

I see your point now....lets get rid of those useless drunk driving and licensing laws

 

[Seawytch]

Point is that all those vehicle laws don't stop drunk drivers, drivers with suspended licenses, drivers with no license, drivers that may want to use a vehicle to kill others.

The car is not the culprit.

I see your point now....lets get rid of those useless drunk driving and licensing laws

Why not? You can open carry in bars...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ABikerSailor]

Did anyone stop to examine the FACT that this terrorist took out more people with a truck than most other terrorists have managed to take out with a suicide vest or automatic weapons?

The body count so far from the truck attack is 84. It has a possibility of going up, because some of the people in the hospital are still critical.

Now.............when a single suicide bomber detonates his bomb, it usually ends up killing only 20 to 40 people. That's about half of what the truck did.

Attacks that have been done with guns usually only yield around 10 to 20 bodies if there are one or two attackers, and can go up to 50 to 70 with a coordinated attack of several people, but those can sometimes be tracked and caught, so they have a risk.

Can you imagine what would have happened if some maniac had decided to do that over the 4th of July during a fireworks display? It would have been just as bad or worse.

This new line of attack does make me a bit nervous, because that is something that you can't foresee.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see your point now....lets get rid of those useless drunk driving and licensing laws

Obviously you didn't see my point. And that is laws don't guarantee anything. Why write laws that make it more difficult on everybody else and solves nothing? Because it makes you feel good?

 

[AntonToo]

I see your point now....lets get rid of those useless drunk driving and licensing laws

Obviously you didn't see my point. And that is laws don't guarantee anything. Why write laws that make it more difficult on everybody else and solves nothing? Because it makes you feel good?

Just because laws don't guarantee something doesn't mean they don't help solve the problem.

Drunk driving and licensing laws do not guarantee sober and licensed driving, or anything else, but again are you going to tell me you're against laws because they "solve nothing"? Come on it's a dead end argument.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just because laws don't guarantee something doesn't mean they don't help solve the problem.

Drunk driving and licensing laws do not guarantee sober and licensed driving, or anything else, but again are you going to tell me you're against laws because they "solve nothing"? Come on it's a dead end argument.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Why write laws that make it difficult on everybody else and solve nothing?

You get a drivers license to prove you can operate a vehicle. You get license plates so police can identify a vehicle. You get insurance in the event your get in an accident with your vehicle. None of these laws will stop one drunk driver or somebody without a license. That's not why those laws are in place.

Now if we didn't have drivers licensees, license plates, mandatory insurance, and somebody said we need any of those things to stop unlicensed and drunk drivers, I would say the same thing: those laws won't stop the problem.