Dem Rep. Allred: ‘How We’ve Approached Car Safety’ Is ‘Right Model’ for Guns

Breitbart ^ | 05/30/2022 | Ian hatchett

[philman_36]

Some interesting reading...
Driving is CommerceThe distinction must be drawn between:

1. Travelling upon and moving one's private property upon the public roads, which is a Common Law “right”.

2. Using the public roads as a place of commerce in a for-hire capacity, which is a legally granted “privilege”.

“Traveling” is a Common Law right exercised by a private man or woman defined as a “traveler”, in a non-commercial capacity, in the ordinary course of their life.

“Driving” is a legally granted privilege performed in a registered motor vehicle by a licensed “driver”, in a for-hire capacity, for the purpose of commercial gain.

One's purpose for using the highway determines one's jurisdiction. There's been plenty of discussion on the issue over the years.

[Gay State Conservative]

Shall not be infringed? What a foolish,1950s kind of guy you are! The Constitution is a “living document”.

[DMD13]

Unlike guns, we don’t have a right to drive, it is a privilidge.

[grey_whiskers]

From a poster on patriots.win:

Nancy Pelosi is denied Communion for supporting abortion.

Eight days later...

Drunk driving hubby Paul Pelosi pulls in front of, and t-boned, by a vehicle driven by Jesus.

[DoughtyOne]

Be sure and get your name on a list right away. You don’t want
others to get ahead of you in line to get their guns
confiscated because they got on the list prior to you.

[teeman8r]

“They are saying though, that you can’t drive an F1 around, you can’t go certain speeds, you can’t do certain things because it’s dangerous.”

driving through participants of a christmas parade makes cars too dangerous.

declaring schools no gun zones get people shot.

[for-q-clinton]

Where are automobiles mentioned in the constitution?

[MileHi]

I agree with the concept, but the states don’t. Driving without valid pates and state issued permission card will get you in a heap of trouble.

[Bob434]

[[“Nobody’s talking about taking away your cars. They are saying though, that you can’t drive an F1 around, you can’t go certain speeds, you can’t do certain things because it’s dangerous.”]]

And yet=- despite all the freakin vehicle laws on the books, people still go out and break the law! You can not stop criminals- period!- you can however secure schools and stop the asinine gun free zones which attract criminals!

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

Tens of thousands die from drunk driving accidents.

Next, these lefties will be calling for a ban on the sale and possession of beer, and the closing of the breweries.

And a ban on the sale and possession of wine and the closing of the wineries.

And a ban on the sale and possession of hard liquor and the closing of the distilleries.

Like that’s going to happen.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

The ownership of firearms is a Constitutional right, automobiles are not.

[reed13k]

On occasion I’ve fired a single shot rifle faster then a relative has fired a semi-auto...just to show I could. Their arguments are species (sp?) at best.

[Mastador1]

Really, approach it like we do cars? Does the imbecile realize that there are already laws in place for defective products? In what way did the gun used malfunction? It didn’t, the malfunction was in the brain of the operator. If a drunk runs over people and kills them is there a demand to take cars off the road? If the car happened to be a black Suburban is there a demand to to take scary black Suburbans off the market?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I would prefer a simple “off” switch.

[Myrddin]

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for these idiots. We already have prohibited areas...schools, courts, juvenile detention. There are already laws against shooting inside city limits. There are laws against carrying a firearm when intoxicated. None of that has much impact on the daily keep and bear.

Red flag laws that permit secret accusations with ex parte hearing and law enforcement coming to confiscate firearms with no indication of charges, no due process with the accuser, no charges or convictions is insane and unconstitutional.

Limiting magazine sizes makes self-defense carry a lot more inconvenient. Most 9mm "carry" pistols aim for 12 rds in a compact magazine as an optimal load out. Carrying one or two spare mags is fine, but not great if the reason is to compensate for required smaller capacities.

Trying to ban the most common rifle pattern in the US, the AR-15, is just nuts. There is nothing special or "deadly" about the AR-15. It's a standard semi-auto rifle.

Most annoying is the penchant to punish 320 million people who committed no crimes with their own firearms as a "fix" for what one mentally deranged individual did (in spite of being obvious as a dumpster fire at a filling station in social media).

[apillar]

And “Car Regulation” only works because they are huge hunks of metal that can’t really be hidden and that can be easily tracked as they need to travel on public roads (and still many people find a way to do so and drive without insurance or up to date registration on a regular basis). Guns on the other hand are none of these things, they can be easily concealed and you can literally walk down the street with one and nobody is the wiser. So basically the only people who would bother following “gun regulation similar to cars” is the 10% or so “Dudley Do-Rights” that follow any law the Government shoves down their throat (basically the same people that raced out to buy a mask the first day of COVID).

[EandH Dad]

How about if we install airbags IN politicians instead of ON them?

[bobbo666]

No.

If you did not vote for a conservative, one that actively supports the Cosnt, you can’t own a gun. Let’s not give the fat arsed ones who can’t get to a polling station any credit. You don’t vote, you are on probation.