Don’t Like Guns? Then Regulate Them Like Cars!

“Why can’t guns be treated like cars, regulated and available, only to those who demonstrate competence and compliance with laws?”
Demonstrating competence and compliance with the law is a requirement for obtaining a DL? Could've fooled me! Take a drive along the Cross Bronx Expy, the BQE, LIE, US 19 (especially between St Pete and Port Richey, FL), or any other such "relaxing scenic routes" and see how well those requirements work. And they want to treat firearms the same way? G-D HELP US!

I'd like to offer these observations, for consideration:

"We don’t need cars to defend against tyranny."

Defense has active and passive elements. Stand and fight in place, or retire to a defensible location.

Freedom of mobility is an actually essential element of the inalienable right to live where one pleases. Without mobility, one is a de facto captive of the local or State regime (and those that support it).

So by extension, freedom of mobility is a defense against tyranny - look at all the Kalifornians moving elsewhere, particularly to Texas. And look at the several NE states (as well as the fedgov) looking impose an "emigration" tax for those trying to leave the particular State or the United States.

"If we did the left would outlaw cars and make everyone take public transportation."

On examination, the various schemes to affect and change our choice of transportation constitute infringements of sorts on our right of mobility.

* I've yet to see a public transportation mode that takes me to my destination in less time and at less cost than I can get there with my own transportation.

* So-called "green" cars cost more, and have reduced range and lower sustainable speeds than regular cars. They also cost more to operate, and have higher environmental impacts.

* Typical city buses are also overweight for the number of axles, and impose much more damage on streets (requiring higher maintenance efforts/costs, and more frequent replacement) than an equivalent number of individual cars.

"...the goal of the left is to eliminate ~~gun ownership~~ individual freedom in this country."

There you go....

Were the horse and wagon taxed/regulated/licensed at the time of the Founding? Could the Founders have contemplated specific advances in transportation & mobility (to use a gun- and press-related argument)?

A right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or the the Bill of Rights is still guaranteed and protected. See Amendments #9 and #10.

A comparing guns and cars is very slippery bit of sophistry not logic. Possession of and the right to bear Arms is a right, reinforced and enumerated in our Constitution.

Vehicles are mere property which the Fourth Amendment assures us cannot be taken by the government without due process. Vehicle title, licensing and registration all came into existence for the purpose of revenue collection; supposedly to finance our highways. Remember that the bastards have diverted those funds and now regulate the manufacture of your vehicles. If that isn’t clear enough reason to reject Government regulation...

I SEE.......................................

Disarm ALL the decent law-abiding people SO THAT....
They cannot defend themselves against the NON decent ones..

THAT will never give up their firearms no matter how many laws you pass..

Question: What mentality can see this as logical?..
Answer: Insurgents trying to take over your country.. traitors.. agents of destruction of LIBERTY.

Attitude should be ATTACKed aggressivly.. with armed fury..
America in Crisis

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iu92zs5gg2bwuy3/FIRE.avi?dl=0

Alright As long as they remember People dont require anything but money to buy a car or uses a car on their own property, nor is there any kind of background check unless your applying for credit.

A drivers licence is not required is to buy or own a car and nether should any kind of licence or background check be required for a gun.

The funny truth is this guy doesnt seem to reconize that nobody requires anything but money to buy, own, or drive(on their own property) a car.

A licence and insurance is only required if you wish to drive on Public roads. Im quite sure we can arrange a similar system of licence and insurance of people wish to use their guns shooting people in public.

I believe the British already have such a thing for their secrete service its called a “Licence to Kill”. lol

“A comparing guns and cars is very slippery bit of sophistry not logic. Possession of and the right to bear Arms is a right, reinforced and enumerated in our Constitution.”

That may be true of anything particular with this guys absoulte iqnorants about cars.

Nobody is required to have insurance, a licence, or even a background check to buy or even drive a car.

Insurance and a drivers licence is only required for using your car on public roads. You can have your car towed anywhere you want, you can even take it apart an carry it anywhere you want without a licence or insurance.

So treating guns like cars would mean to introduce “shooting licences” for the public. Something you might better call a “licence to kill”. The stuff of James bond.