Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!


PDA

MachIVshooter
December 17, 2012, 04:26 PM
Guns are not automobiles. They are very different machines with a very different purpose, and drawing parallels between the two in the legal and political context serves absolutely no useful purpose.

I have been utterly shocked at the number of members here who are ready and willing to accept gun control, and a very common theme among these collaborators is the car/gun comparison - especially the licensure aspect.

Let's just blow this one out of the water:

1) Priviledge versus right: Driving is a priviledge, owning a firearm is a constitionally protected (not granted, protected!) right.

2) Licensure: Driver licenses require a proficiency test, but do not require a clean criminal history, or get denied for being adjudicated a mental defect; Would you rather have gun purchasers prove that they know how to handle a weapon, or would you rather know based on their history that they are not criminals and probably not dangerous?

3) Minimum ages: Despite some ridiculously ill-informed posts, there is no minimum age to purchase a vehicle.

4) Performance: Though I and many others disagree with the existing restrictions, fact remains that firearms (and other weapons) are already heavily restricted by the NFA based on characteristics of performance, requiring minimum ages, extensive approval processes and a tax to simply possess any of these "high performance" guns. Automobiles, on the other hand, are virtually unrestricted nation-wide; You can have as large or small, as fast or slow, as powerful or anemic of a vehicle as you desire (or can afford). And with few exceptions (most notably being able to physically fit between lanes), there is no limit to what you may operate on a public street, so long as you tag and insure it, and have appropriate lighting. And despite obvious dangers associated with putting a 16 year old new licensee behind the wheel of a 1,200 WHP twin-turbocharged Corvette, there are NO laws against it.

5) Penalties for misuse: There is not one reckless or careless act one can do with a firearm that doesn't already carry far stiffer penalties than a similarly reckless or careless act done with an automobile.

6) Registration: Some love to cite how we can track a vehicle owner by the registration, and so should we be able to with guns. While it often seems logical prima facie, let's look at the reasoning behind automobile registration, and why it doesn't have the same application for firearms:

A) The primary purpose behind vehicle registration is the fees collected, which are used to maintain and construct the public roads & bridges those vehicles will travel on. I don't see the FET paid on firearms being used to fund public ranges.

B) The purpose of having license plates is to 1) make sure the registration fees were paid and 2) give people a way to ID vehicles (not necessarily the vehicle's owner) that have been involved in an accident or illicit act. Both purposes are easily defeated by the non-law abiding; Do car thieves go and re-register the stolen car? Of course not. So what makes anyone think gun registration would be any different? For this reason, gun registration is useless (and it's a lot easier to spot a stolen 2 ton motor vehicle than a stolen 2 pound handgun). It puts an unfair burden on lawful gun owners, and is totally useless in the solving (let alone prevention) of crimes.

C) You are not required to register a vehicle that you're not going to operate on public streets. So I submit to the pro gun registration crowd, are you OK with only registering those firearms that will be used on public ranges? If so, how do you go about enforcing this?

7) Danger to society: Despite registration, despite licensing and despite the fact that there are fewer cars owned by Americans than firearms, motor vehicles are involved in far more injuries and fatalities every year. So I ask again, do we really want guns to be like cars?

8) Illicit use: Perhaps the most salient point is that taking away one's driver license does not stop them from being able to drive any more than prohibiting a person from owning a firearm stops them from owning and using a gun. Laws define crime, and punishments deter it, but no amount of legislation can prevent criminal acts.

I could go on, but I do believe the point is made. If anyone feels I missed something, feel free to add.

If you enjoyed reading about "Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rybu0305
December 17, 2012, 04:55 PM
Great post. You made some very good points and this is an argument I hear often.

Westfair
December 17, 2012, 05:02 PM
Just want to say excellent post, I've been seeing this analogy all over the web - I'm going to point several friends to this thread.

Fishbed77
December 17, 2012, 05:04 PM
I was thinking the same thing earlier today. I am sick of this analogy, and the OP's very first point clearly states why it is not valid.

jimmyraythomason
December 17, 2012, 05:09 PM
Laws define crime, and punishments deter it, but no amount of legislation can prevent criminal acts.
Truth that!

Trent
December 17, 2012, 05:09 PM
You don't have a constitutional right to automobiles.

holdencm9
December 17, 2012, 05:17 PM
I get what you are saying and agree, I just think that sometimes the cars get brought up in this regard:

Anti says we should do x y and z to curtail gun violence.

Gun owner says that x would be illegal according to the USSC's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and y would be practically impossible and way too expensive to be feasible, and z would be feasible, but would have no or negligible impact on gun violence.

Anti says "Well we have got to do SOMETHING! "

And then someone says, well, if the government really cares about saving lives, it could lower speed limits, lower BAC limits, and enforce/penalize drunk drivers more heavily, and accomplish a lot more.

Which is true. It kind of diverts the argument of course, and definitely is not the strongest argument at all (really, the inalienable human right of self defense that is not granted, but PROTECTED by the bill of rights shouldn't need much of an argument, but alas) but it is true. If the government really wanted to help save as many lives as possible, with the least amount of legislation necessary, WITHIN the limits of the Constitution and BOR, there are much more effective ways to do it. But since gun control is about control and not guns, that's not the strategy they are taking. They also say that death by gun is much worse than death by car accident, but really, I think dead is dead.

kalel33
December 18, 2012, 01:24 AM
C) You are not required to register a vehicle that you're not going to operate on public streets. So I submit to the pro gun registration crowd, are you OK with only registering those firearms that will be used on public ranges? If so, how do you go about enforcing this?

This really depends on the state. In Kansas, you have to register your vehicle and tag it every year, even if you don't drive it.

TreeDoc
December 18, 2012, 01:48 AM
Guy "T-boned" my truck last year, totaled it and sent me to the hospital. Guess what? No insurance, no driver license. Wasn't even supposed to be out on the road. Guy walked away with a ticket and a slap on the wrist.No need to sue, guy wasn't going to pay anyway. People are going to do what they want no matter what, just hope your not in the way.

jbj
December 18, 2012, 04:10 AM
7) Danger to society: Despite registration, despite licensing and despite the fact that there are fewer cars owned by Americans than firearms, motor vehicles are involved in far more injuries and fatalities every year. So I ask again, do we really want guns to be like cars?

Good post, but as for #7, statistically, that is apples to oranges as cars are used for more regularly and for longer intervals than firearms (one of my math nerds pointed this out to me).

MachIVshooter
December 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
In Kansas, you have to register your vehicle and tag it every year, even if you don't drive it.

Kansas probably has one of the highest percentages of unregistered/expired registration vehicles in the USA.

There are a lot of places where you can be ticketed if you have an unregistered vehicle parked on a public street or visible from a public street, but I can't think of any place where one stored in a barn or garage has to be (or at least not where it's enforced).

Good post, but as for #7, statistically, that is apples to oranges as cars are used for more regularly and for longer intervals than firearms (one of my math nerds pointed this out to me).

That's my entire premise; Comparing the two is always apples to oranges. The purpose of #7 is just to help demonstrate to those who like using the comparison that motor vehicles present a far greater danger to society. I don't think I know a single person who hasn't been involved in (and injured in) a MVA. I can't think of very many people I know who have been shot (only one who's name I actually know)

Sam1911
December 18, 2012, 11:52 AM
Hmmm...I'm going to nominate this as a Sticky thread.

EDIT: DONE!

CharlieDeltaJuliet
December 18, 2012, 12:00 PM
You are exactly right MachIVShooter. I agree about firearms being a right grated at birth. Merry Christmas all.

horsemen61
December 18, 2012, 12:03 PM
It is my right to own a gun I do not believe in conceding anything:D

Acera
December 18, 2012, 01:20 PM
1) Priviledge versus right: Driving is a priviledge, owning a firearm is a constitionally protected (not granted, protected!) right.

That is true in states that don't have a FOID.

In Illinois owning a firearm is a privilege, not a right for the reasons you stated. The courts have upheld that also.

Don't get yourself thinking that it can't and won't happen other places because it's constitutionally protected.

We are in a phase of where the ideas of The Shock Doctrine are being implemented. People will overreact to a crisis and allow themselves to give up many more freedoms and liberties than they would with cooler heads.

beatledog7
December 18, 2012, 01:35 PM
Excellent OP!

Ghost Obi Wan
December 18, 2012, 08:48 PM
What MachIV said! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Bubbles
December 19, 2012, 12:53 PM
There is no waiting period required to purchase an automobile. If you have the cash available, you can buy any vehicle you wish and have it towed home that day, with no background check, no verification of having a driver's license, and no insurance.

Not sure about other states, but in mine there is no need to register or insure a vehicle that will only be kept on private property, and there is no license needed to operate a vehicle as long as it is only driven on private property.

Eleanor416Rigby
December 19, 2012, 05:11 PM
A few misguided folks in Illinois might be mistaken and think it is a privelege to own/carry a gun in that state, but they are dead wrong. The 7th circuit court very recently struck down Illinois' ban on concealed carry. One of the judge's comments in the decision (paraphrased, not quoted): A person is more likely to be assaulted walking the streets of Chicago than locked inside his 12th-story Condo.

Anyway, whether or not local officials agree, it is a right to own and carry in every state of the United States. State laws to the contrary are illegal, unconstitutional violations of citizens' rights.

Cosmoline
December 19, 2012, 05:35 PM
drawing parallels between the two in the legal and political context serves absolutely no useful purpose.

But you yourself draw useful parallels to distinguish and compare the two situations. There are several useful observations that can be made. First of all, having your guns licensed by the ATF as many antis desire is like having your cars licensed by the EPA. So if you want a car--any car--you have to convince some EPA agent that you really, really need one. Otherwise it's a bicycle for you. I'd be fine with that, but something tells me most other Americans would not be ;-)

DMV's regulate driving on public roads. They do not regulate what happens in people's private property. So in that sense they are closer to state level CCW regulation the anti's violently oppose.

And of course the DMV's are state-controlled and have a pro-auto mandate of instructing the driving public. They do not have a mandate of eliminating as many drivers and cars as possible (though it may seem that way waiting in line).

greymetal
December 20, 2012, 03:21 AM
I am brand new to the forum and all I can say is I'm actually surprised to hear that *some* members of this forum are actually okay with more gun control.

Great post.

Romeo 33 Delta
December 20, 2012, 10:33 PM
@Kalel33 .... does this apply even if said vehicle is transported to my 50 acre ranch and never hits a public roadway? I somehow doubt that. Or, you drive your old pick up to my ranch, I pay you $2500 cash, you give me your title and I stick it in my desk drawer and NEVER leave the ranch with it.

A guy from California told me it was like that there too ... didn't argue, but I don't see how the State cares as long as I don't use their roadways. Why is it any of the affair?

Just askin'.

kalel33
January 8, 2013, 02:49 PM
@Kalel33 .... does this apply even if said vehicle is transported to my 50 acre ranch and never hits a public roadway? I somehow doubt that. Or, you drive your old pick up to my ranch, I pay you $2500 cash, you give me your title and I stick it in my desk drawer and NEVER leave the ranch with it.

It goes with the out of of sight, out of mind mentality of the government. If your car is sitting in your driveway with a tarp on it then the government won't inspect it, unless they get a call from a "concerned" citizen about having cars on your property that aren't tagged. If someone turns you in, then yes you do. My parents used to own 5 different Mustangs from the '60's and they had to have them tagged, after someone turned them in for not being tagged, even through they were under car covers.

swathdiver
January 8, 2013, 03:00 PM
Any restrictions on firearm ownership is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Driving should be a right but we have allowed the state to classify it as a privledge giving them more control over our lives.

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2013, 03:33 PM
Any restrictions on firearm ownership is a violation of the 2nd Amendment....In the real world not until a court has so ruled.

ZombieFromDU
January 13, 2013, 06:53 PM
Good post. I mostly see the comparison of gun and cars from gun enthusiasts, which I think is strange. Cars are extremely regulated because they are dangerous, so the comparison seems counterproductive to pro-2A arguments for the reasons you have posted.

gallo
January 16, 2013, 01:13 AM
Good post. However, with regard to vehicle registration it seems the reason horses were not registered was because nobody in his right mind would swallow the lie that owning a horse and using it as a trasnportation means was a privilige.

hso
January 16, 2013, 11:22 PM
Cars are extremely regulated

How so? When you purchase a car you have to register the vehicle and get a tag proving that a tax was paid for the vehicle to use the road. The tag has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with paying for the road? There requirement to have the lights work is a safety regulation that is universal for a vehicle on the road, but isn't for one that is used on private property.

While I think the car analogy is weak and tiresome I don't understand where the idea that a car if highly regulated.

k_dawg
January 17, 2013, 09:32 PM
A better analogy would be a voter ID card.

Shall issue to everyone who can legally vote, required in a minimum amount of time, and for no charge.

Xelera
February 6, 2013, 03:27 PM
Two words: Property Tax.

Most states make money off of annual taxes on what you own based on it's value. Even if you never drive it on a road, they like having money to fix the roads you may some day drive on, and if not, then they come out ahead, because you are paying money for roads and not using them up.

So I guess one word would be even more appropriate... "Revenue".

ZeSpectre
February 16, 2013, 03:11 PM
We see a lot of hotly contested "debate" about the nature of guns and regulations and a lot of it veers into the ditch pretty quickly. I thought this, somewhat more "ivory tower" discussion might make for interesting reading.

PLEASE, don't "bomb" the site, if you want to participate keep it civil or don't bother.


Talking Philosophy: The Philosophers' Magazine Blog
Are Guns Analogous to Cars
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6756

JRH6856
February 16, 2013, 04:12 PM
It is not so much an in depth comparison of cars and guns as it is a discussion of argument by analogy that happens to use cars and guns as the example. But it is useful in explaining the proper use analogy.

MachIVshooter
February 16, 2013, 10:54 PM
It's a good article, but the car-gun analogy is still a worthless one. Both sides use it, and it's just as ridiculous either way. The only thing they have in common is that they are machines, they can be fun to operate, and they can be deadly if used carelessly or maliciously. From there, the comparison falls apart.

ApacheCoTodd
February 16, 2013, 11:23 PM
At least as far as registration is concerned.
A look at California's attitude about cars and their registration shows that once registered, the owner is almost turned into a caretaker of the car for the state. I believe there are those in power that truly believe once something is "registered" it gives the government right to hold sway over that item's use and in fact possession.
Look at how many of them believe that since currency is printed and distributed by the government that it and its representation as the "fruit of one's labor" can be controlled as though they hold full power over not only the cash but what it represents.
Back to cars in California... Have one registered, take it off the road for whatever reason and just try to not get "Non-Op" plates while it sits. They can and have exercised perceived rights to confiscate said car for failure to maintain registration whether it's driven or not.

Then there's the whole right - privilege argument wafting over the car and gun debates. Many on the opposite side will mis-state that automobile ownership is a privilege while in fact the USE of one on a public road is the privilege and the ownership is more of a right... Not in California! They'll tell you whether or not you can have one based upon whether or not they choose to issue a registration - off road too.

Now guns - there are a great many anti gunners (by sentiment anyhow) who will concede limited rights to ownership while trying very hard to restrict or otherwise control use - very much like cars.

I saw so many of the same tacks used in the attempt to restrict "classic cars" in California in the 90s that I've always seen in anti gun movements. "Who needs a *** capable of...?" What's a ***** good for other than....?"

JRH6856
February 16, 2013, 11:51 PM
Now guns - there are a great many anti gunners (by sentiment anyhow) who will concede limited rights to ownership while trying very hard to restrict or otherwise control use

In fact, it has been pointed out to me numerous times in the past that the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms, but the right to use arms for any reason is unprotected and can therefore be regulated or even completely prohibited. Heller put that to rest at least in regards to the use for self defense.

Kramer Krazy
February 17, 2013, 12:05 AM
I love the car registration argument because here, we only have to register them if we intend to drive them on local roads. I have three motorcycles that are not registered and have been in my possession for a few years. I won't register them (or even transfer the title) until I am done working on them and intend to have them on the road. Even then, if I don't plan on riding them once registering them, I simply quite paying for the registration and let them sit. I know of a car that currently has been in the same owner's hands since 1983 and it hasn't been registered since 1979. I don't even think he's transferred the title, yet.

The government has absolutely no idea where these motorcycles and that car are....until WE decide to title or register them. ;)

MachIVshooter
February 17, 2013, 12:17 AM
I love the car registration argument because here, we only have to register them if we intend to drive them on local roads.

That's a real quick way to shut them up, about the licensure aspect too.

"We should treat guns just like cars. You need a license to drive, and we register cars"

"So if I'm not going to use my gun on public property, I don't need any license or registration for it?"

"Uhhhhh.........."

beatledog7
February 17, 2013, 07:53 AM
Analogies are useful even when they're not perfect. In fact, none are perfect.

The use of analogy does not require that every aspect of the two things be analogous, only the key things being compared. It is sometimes in the ways that the things are not analogous that the truth comes to light, and the mind is stimulated to learn more.

One of my favorite aspects of the car/gun analogy is this:

If you can find a reference the right to own and drive a car (or a wagon or a horse or any form of private conveyance) in the Constitution of the United States or in that of a state, then you can say that guns and cars must be regulated similarly in that state.

FROGO207
February 17, 2013, 09:41 AM
Yep the automobile ownership/use is a privilege and the firearms ownership/use is a constitutional right. NOT THE SAME. End of argument.:banghead:

ApacheCoTodd
February 17, 2013, 11:19 AM
Yep the automobile ownership/use is a privilege and the firearms ownership/use is a constitutional right. NOT THE SAME. End of argument.:banghead:
Absolutely NOT the end of the argument.:banghead:
The use of firearms while possibly implied is not a protected right as is the ownership whereas the ownership of a car (as personal property) has implied protection as a right yet USE of same on public roads is in no way a right but a strictly regulated privilege.

The analogy certainly stands especially when you factor in;
Relative numbers of deaths.
Liability arguments.
Mis-use.
Factors involving governmental control of alteration, modification, augmentation, safety requirements, etc...
Reckless use scenarios.

-Xero-
March 10, 2013, 09:04 PM
You don't have a constitutional right to automobiles.

This took a half dozen posts. Should have been the FIRST reply.

DarrinD
March 16, 2013, 05:35 PM
This took a half dozen posts. Should have been the FIRST reply.
But you do have a constitutional right to travel; by extension you could argue that reasonable regulation of firearms is similar to regulation of automobiles (the implements of travel).

joeschmoe
March 16, 2013, 06:16 PM
But you do have a constitutional right to travel; by extension you could argue that reasonable regulation of firearms is similar to regulation of automobiles (the implements of travel).
We already have 20,000 "reasonable" restrictions on firearms, but I have never heard of a ban on automobiles, confiscation of automobiles for lawful owners or 10 year prison sentences for illegal modifications of automobiles. You want more?
Auto's are not the only method of travel. Do we prohibit people who have committed misdemeanors from riding on trains, buses and planes? Boats?
Did you have to sign an affidavit and pass a background check to travel for the holidays? If the bureaucracy fails you, you have to submit your social security number, fingerprints and another affidavit and background check to travel.
Do you face 10 years in prison if you cut your travel too short? Or sell your cruise tickets to another.

Did you register your sneakers before you can hike in a National Forest? Is there a federal agency devoted to enforcing cosmetic restrictions on your shoes with mandatory minimum sentences?

Would these be "reasonable" restrictions on a Constitutionally protected right? The same document that empowers the government also restricts it. The 2nd Amendment is one of those specific restrictions upon it's power.

GlowinPontiac
March 16, 2013, 09:24 PM
CT has proposed requiring a license, registration and insurance for each gun you own. To be renewed anually.

Sounds exactly like a car.

Sent from my C5120 using Tapatalk 2

michaelbsc
March 16, 2013, 10:45 PM
Do we prohibit people who have committed misdemeanors from riding on trains, buses and planes? Boats?
Did you have to sign an affidavit and pass a background check to travel for the holidays? If the bureaucracy fails you, you have to submit your social security number, fingerprints and another affidavit and background check to travel.
Do you face 10 years in prison if you cut your travel too short? Or sell your cruise tickets to another.


Not *YET* , but I think the day is coming that you'll have to get travel permission.

Stage a few more rallies on the Capitol mall and they'll talk about it openly. The tresspas act will expand greatly.

I expect the younger members will see it.

Carl N. Brown
March 20, 2013, 11:18 AM
Most car registration and licensing laws were passed with a view to simply regulate automobile safety on the public streets in the least intrusive manner possible and to raise just enough revenue to pay for the enforcement of those laws.

My experience is that gun registration, permit and licensing laws are promoted by prohibitionists with a view to make it as hard as possible to own a gun short of outright prohibition. Read their venom: they hate guns, they want to repeal the Second Amendment and they loath NRA. At least FDR's Attorney General Homer Cummings was honest about the 1934 National Firearms Act, federal registration and $200 tax (in 1934 dollars) on pistols, concealable rifles and shotguns, machineguns, and silencers: he wanted to prohibit them, but his interpretation of the Second Amendment was he could not outright ban, so he wanted a tax and register law that amounted to defacto prohibition. Pistols were removed from the NFA before it passed (NRA is blamed for that). We must remember that the Australian confiscation and destruction of 600,000+ semi-auto and pump-action long guns in 1996 was only possible because they were first registered with the government.

TylerS
March 21, 2013, 11:20 PM
One of my favorite quote, "I don't entertain hypotheticals, the world is vexing enough as it is." True Grit, 2011

larryh1108
March 23, 2013, 09:05 AM
The main reason, that I see, that this comparison is used is because most people who wish to ban guns have absolutely no idea about them, never held or shot one and believe every gun has an evil soul.

We use the comparison because most people do drive and can understand how a restriction or change in the car laws would affect them. Banning guns does not affect them in any way but ban driving over 55mph and these same people will cry foul. It's not about the right to own guns, or cars, but about giving the antis something they can relate to when trying to make unneeded changes that affect them. It's more to give them something important to them to see our point.

Match10
March 23, 2013, 08:54 PM
C) You are not required to register a vehicle that you're not going to operate on public streets. So I submit to the pro gun registration crowd, are you OK with only registering those firearms that will be used on public ranges? If so, how do you go about enforcing this?.

Not true at all....

Most localities derive a significant property ad valorem tax income from a registered vehicle, and that tax is due because you own it. The tax is due on every vehicle whether road worthy or not.

Deadclown
July 10, 2013, 08:31 PM
Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but I use the automobile/ gun ownership analogy when people bring up the argument of necessity ie: "why would anyone NEED an AR-15"? type questions. My answer is always "why do you need a car with more than 80 HP? The government could always say well you don't need more than that because the speed limit is 55-65 (except Texas 80)"

Pizzapinochle
July 29, 2013, 03:53 PM
I think usually the car discussion comes up when a pro-gun person posts something like...

"Cars kill more people than guns! Why don't you try and ban CARS!!!"

or something equally irrelevant.

This leads to a pro-gun-control person saying:

"Yes, but we register cars and you have to have a driver's license to drive it!"

And that conversation procedes to have nothing to do with a discussion on gun control/2a rights.

It would be best if BOTH sides got rid of the irrelevant and distracting noise that gets put out by pro/anti advocates on either end.

Ogre One
August 24, 2013, 01:11 PM
Any restrictions on firearm ownership is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Driving should be a right but we have allowed the state to classify it as a privledge giving them more control over our lives.

The initial post that started this thread is great. I consider myself sufficiently chastised.

As for "right" vs "privilege", my oldest daughter tried to use that "driving is a right" argument when she turned 16. She actually kept a learner's permit for two years because she was (and may still be to some extent) a moving road hazard. She has learned over the years that driving is indeed a "privilege" and not a "right" as she once believed.

Both situations - guns and cars - come with inherent responsibilities. Unfortunately those misguided soles in power who think legislation will control violence resulting from the improper use of each are just plain delusional. The only proven deterrent is stiffer fines for things considered minor and stronger penalties (up and including death) for major things including the loss of life.

Bluelight
December 6, 2013, 07:35 PM
Excellent post by MachIVShooter generated some good discussion. The bottom line remains that the Constitution acknowledges "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It is a major component of the document this country was founded on and, even then, did not limit that right to muskets and spears, to the exclusion of new technologies. We need to make sure to elect representatives who will truly represent our views and beliefs unlike the current group.

kvtcomdo
December 15, 2013, 07:34 PM
Driving is not a right; it is a privilege.

The 2nd Amendment is a right.

Anyone that cannot see this is not paying attention.

There is no comparison.

oneounceload
December 15, 2013, 09:02 PM
^^^ Someone gets it

larryh1108
December 15, 2013, 09:21 PM
It's not that we don't get it. We do get it. It's about the antis and the fence sitters who don't get it.

The car analogy is only there to show the ones who do not get it about something they can relate to. They antis don't care about #2. The fence sitters aren't sure what to think. Everybody drives. Take that privelage away from the soccer moms and they will scream bloody murder. It's a way to make them understand/relate because they just don't get it.

PedalBiker
December 15, 2013, 09:41 PM
I think there are a lot of similarities between the two. Both cars and guns are powerful tools. Both cars and guns are vitally important in the exercise of fundamental rights of person hood. The right to security is just as vital as the right to move freely. For many the loss of a driver's license is no better than house arrest.

While "driving" may be considered a privileged now it was not always that way. It used to be that if you had your own transportation it was you right to use it as you saw fit. Frankly I think the whole driving is a privilege thing is BS and is just conditioning to get people ready to have their cars regulated into oblivion.


Being able to move you, your possessions and your family freely used to be considered a right.

And whatever discussions you have with your 16 year old kids are irrelevant. Rights for minors is a totally different issue.

http://www.songlyrics.com/rush/red-barchetta-lyrics/


The point remains. The collective is chipping away at our rights. All of them.

450 Dakota
January 7, 2014, 09:31 AM
Yes indeed! Two very different situations in which there can be no real comparison. The comparison should actually be made to the actual permit to OPERATE the car or the gun, since it all has to do with risk to those around you. If your car is just sitting in the driveway you dont need a permit of any kind--you are using no public venues and are no risk to those around you. In the driver's license scenario, you are actually OPERATING a motor vehicle on a public roadway and potentially posing a very real risk to other drivers around you. This is the difference. If I buy and carry a gun, I pose zero risk to those around me. However, if I actually draw (operate) my gun in public, there is a certain amount of risk to any bystanders around me. The idea of insurance coverage for those who carry has always made a great deal more sense than background checks for purchases or carry permits that just amount to paying government fees, making lists of those who own and carry firearms and filling the rice bowls of CCW instructors who profit by government mandate of the training. If anything, the comparison of mandatory carrying insurance for both operating an automobile or a firearm is more sensible. Background checks, training and permits have not been shown to accomplish anything more than additional cost and bureaucracy.

Bluelight
January 22, 2014, 07:25 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right

Driving an automobile is not

There is NO comparison.

Permits, background checks, and insurance requirements are only a backdoor path to registration and ultimately confiscation. As we accept more of these type restrictions and rationalize their "need", we gradually give up the actual right.

We have enough gun laws in this country, and too many state by state or city by city variations that make it confusing for even the law enforcement community to fully understand.

We also have laws against assault and murder. Enforce those laws no matter what the method used and enforce the penalty properly.

There are no new gun laws needed or acceptable. They would serve no purpose other than lead us closer to giving up that 1/10 of the Bill of Rights.

What is next one to go?
Warrantless searches of personal papers, emails, phone calls???

larryh1108
January 22, 2014, 08:12 PM
What is next one to go?
Warrantless searches of personal papers, emails, phone calls???

Seen the news lately?

Lost Sheep
January 22, 2014, 09:21 PM
It is a prohibition on the Federal Government.

The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed says nothing about the people, everything about the government prohibited from infringing.

One of the cardinal rules of having a debate is to agree on the terms and what they mean. If you are using terms that do not match, the debate is doomed to confusion.

Lost Sheep

torqem
January 22, 2014, 09:40 PM
Our enemies are not "confused". They know exactly what they want to do to/with us, and they know what is preventing them having things as they want them to be. If we surrender those things, we, or our children will get what always happens to weak/fools.

Bluelight
January 23, 2014, 07:35 PM
For Lost Sheep:
"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The actual wording sounds like a right of the people that is protected from the government.

The first ten amendments, which are referred to as the "Bill of Rights", are rights of the people that are explicitly protected from government interference.


Yes larryh1108, I'm afraid have seen the news.

algebraman
April 21, 2014, 10:44 PM
Likewise if I have a driving license it's valid in 50 states... so why isn't my concealed carry?

Frank Ettin
April 21, 2014, 11:03 PM
Because the States have specifically entered into an agreement to honor each others driver's licenses.

Bluelight
April 24, 2014, 08:45 PM
So now we are back to comparing a Constitutional right agreed to by all states entering the Union to a privilege granted by individual states and automatically honored by the others.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution accepted in its entirety as a requirement for becoming a state. Other issues are left as a states right according to the 10th amendment.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2014, 09:20 PM
So now we are back to comparing a Constitutional right agreed to by all states entering the Union to a privilege granted by individual states and automatically honored by the others.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution accepted in its entirety as a requirement for becoming a state. Other issues are left as a states right according to the 10th amendment....No. Actually you have it pretty much all wrong.

Drives' licenses issued by one State aren't "automatically" honored by the others. They are honored by the others because the States all specifically agreed among themselves to do so.


The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. It applied only against the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833).


The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights did not begin to be applied against the States until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries when the Supreme Court began to do so in a piecemeal fashion through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted in 1868) using a process now know as "incorporation."


In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment did not apply against the States.


The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

You really need to educate yourself about what our history and law actually are -- not what you'd like them to be.

jon_in_wv
April 24, 2014, 09:28 PM
The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).


And thank God that is a situation that was corrected. So many people felt it was an intrusion of the federal government to not allow the states to "experiment" with things like ignoring the right to keep and bear arms to help stem the tide of crime. The same people would think it would be insane if the same state and local governments just decided to ignore free speech, or the right to unreasonable search and seizure, or due process for the same reasons. While I don't see the need to incorporate an amendment that did nothing but restrict the government and didn't "grant" a right at all I do at least think it should be treated with the same respect as the other amendments.

As far as the cars analogy, I think its useful to demonstrate to people how they would feel if people's "rights" to own and operate a care were taken away as an example of how we feel if our right to keep and bear arms were taken away. The difference being of course that operating a car is not a right essential to the freedom of our people.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2014, 09:42 PM
...The same people would think it would be insane if the same state and local governments just decided to ignore free speech, or the right to unreasonable search and seizure, or due process for the same reasons...Nonetheless, as a noted above the Supreme Court did rule in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States.

And in 1876 the Supreme Court in Cruikshank cited by me above also ruled specifically that the First Amendment did not apply to the States (as well as the Second Amendment).

Of course much of that has been remedied by application of the Fourteenth Amendment through the use of the doctrine of incorporation. A number of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the States or have been ruled not to apply against the States:

Third Amendment: The right not to be compelled to quarter soldiers has been specifically incorporated only in the Second Circuit. It appears that the has been no other ruling on that question.


Fifth Amendment: The right to indictment by a grand jury has been specifically not incorporated (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)).


Sixth Amendment: The right in a criminal trial to a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred has not been incorporated (Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980)).


Seventh Amendment: The right to a jury trial in a civil case has been held not incorporated against the States (Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916)).


Eighth Amendment: The question of the incorporation of the right to protection against excessive fines has not been addressed.

Study and learn our history and law as it is -- not as you would like it to be.

Sol
April 24, 2014, 10:42 PM
Maybe driving should be a right seeing that most public roads and the interstate highway system wasn't built by volunteers and donations.

Bluelight
April 26, 2014, 10:44 PM
I am by no means an expert in case law, but the original constitution was written to recognize the rights of the people that were to be protected from government intrusion experienced under previous rulers. I realize that through the years courts have "interpreted" the constitution in different ways. That doesn't change the original meaning, only how it is applied for that generation of courts. When future cases are brought, no matter what the topic, the original case law may be modified or reversed in line with then current political thought. It all provides food for thought and emphasizes the importance of trying to be informed.

borgranta
May 23, 2014, 09:26 AM
It is ironic that felons can get a license to drive a car and yet not be allowed to exercise a right.

larryh1108
May 23, 2014, 07:47 PM
It is ironic that felons can get a license to drive a car and yet not be allowed to exercise a right

The irony is the felon gave up his right when he committed the felony.

Snejdarek
August 1, 2014, 03:53 PM
Well I am from a country where the process of getting a firearm license is basically the same as getting the driver's license:
- both have minimum age requirement (15/firearm, 18/car)
- both require written test (both tests include part on first aid!)
- both require practical test
- both require health clearance from general practitioner
- both require renewal subject to health clearance (only old people regarding driving)
- both have requirements regarding existence of administrative and criminal penalties (lack of driving prohibition for cars; clean criminal record/expunged records for firearms)

What I as a licensed gun owner with CCW really like about the system is that if I would ever have to face a random crook, the chances of him having a firearm are next to none (of course, a determined hitman will always get an illegal piece, but that is another matter). Czech Republic is a safe country, but should anything happen, I would be most probably asking him why he brings a knife to a gun fight.

Anyway, both cars and firearms may be very deadly. I prefer people going through the license process for a firearm for the same reason I want drivers to have a license.

I am more bothered by the fact that guns need to be registered - should the government fail to erase the records when invaded, the invaders can easily collect the firearms, limiting possibility of resistance movement. The Czech resistance in WWII was occupied with getting guns at least to the same extent as it was with harming the enemy. (Another history lesson: France did not erase its secret service records after being invaded by Germany: game over for French spies. Czechoslovakia destroyed all - some of the spies remained useful for the allied cause also during the war, other remained safe)

I understand that this has no bearing on the US debate, just giving opinion from elsewhere.

Red Wind
August 1, 2014, 04:07 PM
both have minimum age requirement (15/firearm, 18/car)

The age of 15 to acquire a concealed carry firearm license is remarkable. If I am reading you correctly. 21 is the norm for most of the 50 United States.

And welcome to THR, Snejdarek. :)

Snejdarek
August 1, 2014, 05:31 PM
Red Wind, sorry for the confusion, 15 is for sport shooting (transport only - closed container, "in a way excluding immediate use" = unloaded). CCW is 21.

Here in the Czech Republic a license is prerequisite not only to carry, but also for possession.

Thanks for the welcome!

Red Wind
August 1, 2014, 07:09 PM
You are welcome. Thank you for the clarification. :)

silvercat62
December 17, 2014, 03:28 AM
Love your post. It certainly hits excellent points. Like the old saying goes, you can't compare apples to oranges. Both can harm as well as kill, so in saying that I agree licensing law abiding citizens will never stop unlawful crime of the unlawful criminal.

JeeperCreeper
December 17, 2014, 05:41 AM
I like comparing cars to guns.... but not in the legal sense.

I like my cars very utilitarian, hence my name is Jeeper because I like Jeeps. To me, an AK47 is like a Jeep, its rough and unrefined, but it was always get the job done.

An AR15 is more like a mustang, it's sex and sporty, and can be customized to no end.

I often use car terms to explain gun types to people who don't know why I own certain guns and like other guns.

DisgruntledPatrioit
June 4, 2015, 10:43 AM
Because the government is the one doing the regulating, and they don't want the arms used on THEM when/if they try to act like Stalin.

mark.r.turney
October 28, 2015, 05:06 PM
I would agree with most of your points however, one important one may have been missed.

- A diver's license and a carry/conceal (CCW) permit should share one, constitutionally protected thing in common. Unfortunately they don't currently. Under the Full Faith and Credit Act specifically, Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

What this should mean for us as CCW holders is that if one state permits the issuance of a CCW then the others, where this is a permitted act, should honor those CCW's. Instead we have this insane patchwork of laws and reciprocity that changes with the wind. CCW's are constitutionally protected in almost all 50. Yet my permit isn't recognized in all of those states. That is something we should work on and get fixed. That would be a win in any circle.

Also, our rights have always been trounced upon and a decidedly right leaning Supreme Court has yet to address these issues successfully. Take for instance the new New York state laws concerning magazine size, weapons types etc... 95% of these laws have been allowed to stand. Why. They deprive New Yorker's their constitutionally protected rights, as well as the rights of those that legally transit the state. How many people have been arrested, detained, charged and found guilty of transiting from one plane to another in Laguardia or JFK while never leaving the passenger terminal? I myself was stopped and nearly arrested when I returned from Germany with my weapons. The only thing that got me away from those thugs was the ATF forms that authorized me to transport them into the country.

Sorry for the vent but it felt good. Thanks for the therapy! :cuss:

xxjumbojimboxx
October 28, 2015, 06:10 PM
Looks like this one isnt gunna die ;)

Frank Ettin
October 28, 2015, 06:12 PM
...- A diver's license and a carry/conceal (CCW) permit should share one, constitutionally protected thing in common. Unfortunately they don't currently. Under the Full Faith and Credit Act specifically, Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

What this should mean for us as CCW holders is that if one state permits the issuance of a CCW then the others, where this is a permitted act, should honor those CCW's....No, that is wrong.

States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.


In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.


For example, see this article (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Faith+and+Credit+Clause):...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....


Or this article (http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/full-faith-credit-clause-definition-examples.html):...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...


As discussed here (http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/121/full-faith-and-credit-clause), the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:...The Supreme Court has invoked the clause to police state-court proceedings in three contexts: (1) determining when a state must take jurisdiction over claims that arise in other states; (2) limiting the application of local state law over another state's law in multistate disputes; and (3) recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered in sister-state courts....


And here's (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag1_user.html) another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:...Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B....


Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:


Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:


It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.


What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.


But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:


If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.


If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.


Similarly:


If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.


That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.


But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.


For another example:


You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.


Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.


You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.


In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).


But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.


However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel).

usmarine0352_2005
October 28, 2015, 08:03 PM
I made this poster awhile ago on this subject.



http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/usmarine0352/Right.jpg (http://s47.photobucket.com/user/usmarine0352/media/Right.jpg.html)

Spats McGee
October 29, 2015, 10:41 AM
Thank you, Frank, for that post. I saw the one you've quoted, but just didn't have the time or energy to straighten out that misconception again.

CoalTrain49
October 29, 2015, 11:04 AM
I wish this would get buried right along with the infringement debates.

It doesn't do a lot of good to wave a flag if only a few salute it. You might as well try to find something the majority will support, or at least a large minority.

Tracer 83
January 6, 2016, 08:12 PM
Being that this is my first non-intro thread-post here and that I am a "liberal gun owner"...who is not, in principle, opposed to the very consideration of some forms of regulation...I agree, in part.

However, there most interesting part of this post is, IMO, the fact that it centers around the use of an analogy. I would love it if we'd quit using simple analogies as a community period. I propose we knock off the Hitler memes, overly simple aphorisms, and general snap references to superficially similar...but ultimately weak...references to other legal and ethical matters.

Ironicaintit
January 6, 2016, 08:24 PM
Analogies serve a useful purpose, in exposing double standards in applied logic, or in illustrating in different terms, a problem or occurrence.

In this instance, drawing parallels between automobiles and weapons; fails.

Automobiles do not serve as a bulwark against tyranny, and as such, are not threatened by goverment knowing full well, who owns what.

Firearms do serve that purpose, and so are threatened by government knowing who has what.

Like playing poker....if you know what the other guy has, you have the advantage.

Goverment does not need that advantage, since their motives are often suspect with regards to individual liberty.

Thatd be like....giving ted kennedy the keys to your liquor cabinet and oldsmobile!

larryh1108
January 6, 2016, 09:04 PM
Sometimes you have to use an analogy to make the other person see where you are coming from.

If somebody is 35 and has never seen a gun, never shot a gun and knows no one who owns a gun and doesn't know anyone who faced a gun in a crime, how can they understand anything about the importance of what the right means? To them, it does not matter if it's a Constitutional right or not because it does not affect their lives. They just don't care.

Now, if you tell that same person that the government wants to take away their cars because drunk drivers kill people every day, they will raise holy heck because they think they have the right to drive even though it is not a right at all. It is a privilege regulated by the government but they don't see it that way.

They can't understand what it means to lose a right unless you equate it to them losing something precious to them and when you then point out that gun ownership is a right granted in the Constitution and driving is not, they may just "get it" or they may just blow it off because they aren't affected at all. However, you've given them an analogy they can relate to.

I believe that our biggest downfall in our fight is telling people that without our guns, the government will turn us into slaves or subjects. Whether this is true or not is not relevant to our cause because when the anti-gun crowd as well as the ambivalent gun crowd hear us hammering this home, they see us as radicals because our government would never do that to us, even though history has proven otherwise.

We need to use every other valid argument and leave out the tyranny aspect because, I believe, we lose our credibility to the people on the fence about gun control. They don't see it and never will and they paint us all as paranoid gun nuts. We gain no ground with this argument and may actually turn some people the wrong way because they don't want to support the loonies.

Jackal
January 6, 2016, 09:21 PM
Rights/liberties can be revoked, all the Gov needs is to declare/convict you as a criminal....:scrutiny:

Frank Ettin
January 6, 2016, 10:47 PM
... I would love it if we'd quit using simple analogies as a community period. I propose we knock off the Hitler memes, overly simple aphorisms, and general snap references to superficially similar...but ultimately weak...references to other legal and ethical matters. I agree.

Analogies are often specious or spurious. They are easily debunked or ignored. Analogies are really only useful when looking at things which truly analogous -- a very rare circumstance. As differences between the things compared are identified, the utility of the analogy becomes increasingly tenuous.

Lost Sheep
January 7, 2016, 10:00 PM
Sometimes you have to use an analogy to make the other person see where you are coming from.
(edited for brevity)
To them, it does not matter if it's a Constitutional right or not because it does not affect their lives. They just don't care.

What about the analogy brought to mind by this bumper sticker, "Keep your hands out of my gun locker and I will keep my hands out of your womb" ? That is, is it possible to relate the right to choose regarding whether or not to own or carry a tool of self-defense to the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term?

...leave out the tyranny aspect because, I believe, we lose our credibility to the people on the fence about gun control.
I opine that the tyranny aspect of opposition to gun control is analogous to the tyranny aspect of the opposition to right-to-life legislation. (note that I am not advocating a position on the point, but merely pointing out the utility of appealing to the shared opposition to restrictive/tyrannical laws). That shared opposition to government intrusion may provide a common starting point for understanding. That is, a right-winger could ask a left-winger, "Can you see my resistance to gun control as analgous to your opposition to abortion restriction?")

Moderator Frank Ettin in post 92 rightly points out that "Analogies are really only useful when looking at things which truly analogous". Yes that is true.

I hurry to add that many analogies are useful in facets where (and only where) the relationship is actually relatable/analogous. Many analogies work within some aspects of the analogy and don't work with other aspects. Requiring a license to operate a car on public roads is one aspect of cars. Requiring a license to OWN a car is a different aspect. Requiring registration of cars is another aspect. Requiring a seller verify licensing and/or insurance of a buyer is yet another.

Some of the foregoing aspects of cars are analogous to guns and some aren't. And, one of the current (Jan 6-7 2016) Presidential actions seeks, I am informed, to require private sellers to do some sort of verification of the right of a private buyer. As far as it goes, the car-gun analogy for that aspect holds some usefulness for discussion. And the discussion becomes understandable (back to larryh1108's post 89) by the non-gun-owner who does own a car.

To enable into the understanding of the opposition is beneficial to our goal of converting the anti-gun advocate to a pro-gun point of view isn't it?

Thanks for reading.

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep
January 7, 2016, 10:03 PM
I agree.

Analogies are often specious or spurious. They are easily debunked or ignored. Analogies are really only useful when looking at things which truly analogous -- a very rare circumstance. As differences between the things compared are identified, the utility of the analogy becomes increasingly tenuous.
Frank, yes, I agree, too. And a poorly chosen analogy weakens the supporting argument, so choosing the analogy is important.

Where a car extends deadly force on our public roads, a gun extends deadly force in our world. Is there any useful analogy there?

Lost Sheep

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 10:58 AM
I never did see anywhere in the Constitution where any government has the right to dictate what people's rights are and are not.

People are right about one thing - all the government has to do is make something a felony or in some cases an unrelated crime to revoke inalienable rights.

Even felons and mentally ill people, according to the constitution, have the right to keep and bear arms.

How about this: instead of keeping guns away from bad people, how about keeping bad people away from guns?

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 11:14 AM
I never did see anywhere in the Constitution where any government has the right to dictate what people's rights are and are not.The Bill of Rights simply enumerates, i.e. names and numbers, a set of rights that the government is specifically enjoined from infringing. It does not grant you rights.

However, anyone who violates the laws of the land may be stripped of SOME rights, through due process of law. To deny that would be to say that, just because someone is murdering his neighbors, he can't be denied the right to freedom, weapons, and the pursuit of happiness (or even life in some states).

Which actions are crimes and which crimes require the removal of which rights -- once due process has been seen to -- are matters for legislatures to decide. Not the Constitution and not the Executive or Judicial branches of government.

People are right about one thing - all the government has to do is make something a felony or in some cases an unrelated crime to revoke inalienable rights.I don't know which people ever said that, or why saying that would make them "right" but -- in a government of the people, by the people, a system of laws is established. Once established, individuals BREAKING those laws subject themselves to the possibility of having some of their rights removed (some temporarily, some permanently) as society applies the due process of law against those individuals in court.

Even felons and mentally ill people, according to the constitution, have the right to keep and bear arms.I don't think you understand the concept very well. Rights CAN be removed through due process of law. That's an utterly necessary function of a justice system. Putting someone in jail is a removal of their rights. Executing a convicted murderer is a removal of their MOST FUNDAMENTAL right. Yet, it must be so.

How about this: instead of keeping guns away from bad people, how about keeping bad people away from guns?Oh...but I thought you couldn't deprive someone of their rights, under the Constitution? :rolleyes:

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2016, 11:20 AM
I never did see anywhere in the Constitution where any government has the right to dictate what people's rights are and are not.....This is not the thread in which to start a lengthy discussion of what the Constitution says and how it applies to RKBA issues. But the way things actually are and how things actually work in real life are often very different from the ways some people imagine things to be.

Some past threads discussing these matters include:

Is this lady right or wrong? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=706580&highlight=marbury)


Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=716115&highlight=marbury)


How do we stop this gun control virus (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=753107&highlight=marbury)


Do we have a Constitutional Right to not have Universal Background Checks? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=779828&highlight=marbury)


Second Amerndment Takes A Hit (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=783254&highlight=marbury)


Confusing appellate decision re: 2A and illegal aliens (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=786905&highlight=marbury)


WAS D.C. v HELLER A BAD DECISION? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=794321&highlight=marbury)

For a better understanding of the Constitution from a legal perspective see Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=700582).

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 11:30 AM
Too many laws have been upgraded from misdemeanors to felonies just to take away gun rights.

Keeping someone locked up (due process) removes their rights until they are no longer locked up.

This keeps the bad people away from guns for the most part.

Nothing in due process authorizes the removal of any rights unless incarcerated. But once no longer incarcerated, their full rights should be restored.

Where in the constitution does it say that free men (ahem) lose any right forever?

Even due process isn't supposed to revoke an inalienable right permanently. Or at all.

I know a few 'felons' that lost their gun rights for very minor offenses (like having pot in their pocket at 18 which was a felony in that place at the time). And now they are in their 30's or older.

I might be able to see if they used a gun and hurt someone intentionally. But with that they should be rehabilitated to the point they should have their full rights restored or never let out of prison.

There are a few contradictions in the constitution.

Also, the constitution was an agreement between the people at the time and the government at the time. Where in the constitution does it say that future generations are bound by their decisions?

This is derived from the fact that congress can pass amendments to the constitution. But where does it say in the constitution that you or I agree to any of the government's decisions? Or even that we have to abide by them?

IMHO everone not locked up in jail or mental hospital should enjoy all their rights.

MEHavey
January 8, 2016, 11:32 AM
Napolitano provides an elegantly simple (as we say in the physics trade) breakdown of
Rights vs Constitution vs "The Excutive" here: ·
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/07/president-obama-guns-and-our-constitution.html?intcmp=hpbt2

> In 2008, the Supreme Court laid to rest the once-simmering
> dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment.
> In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court
> articulated the modern existence of the ancient personal
> right to keep and bear arms as a pre-political right.

Read on....
It's a fairly tight outline.

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 11:37 AM
My post can be applied to this thread. Concealed carry, gun rights, etc are included in my post.

But I will look up that item you posted to learn more about things. Thank you.

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 11:39 AM
But once no longer incarcerated, their full rights should be restored.
I wouldn't disagree with that, in principle, but that's a matter for your state legislatures to decide, and the federal congress. If you want it to change, tell your representatives and get out and vote.

The Supreme Court has not struck down the ongoing withholding of rights from felons and those "adjudicated mentally deficient," so it techincally cannot be a violation of the Constitution, and laws have not been changed to eliminate that, so until you and other like minded folks work to change these laws, they remain.

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 11:46 AM
quite interesting.

It begs to ask this:

How does one 'opt out' of ll this government madness so we can have gun freedom like it was written and intended?

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 11:49 AM
Opt out?



Uh, not sure if you're serious or just flappin' your gums for yukks, but ok...

1) Opt out of civil society. Become a criminal. Do whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want however you want with whatever possessions you want, for as long as you can until you run afoul of someone who can stop you.

2) Move to some other country with laws which do not bind you the way ours do. Good luck finding some country like that ... trust me, folks have looked the world over without result.

3) Die.



Otherwise, you're born into a world, and a nation, and a country, and a society, and a social stratum, etc. that has laws of physics, laws of civil society, criminal laws, social norms, mores, traditions, that will all constrain your freedom of action. Good luck opting out.

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 11:50 AM
Most states follow federal guidelines and such. I think I read that under federal law, felons permanently lose their gun rights unless pardoned.

Of course that applies to federal felonies, not state felonies.

In one state, Kansas, you could have your (gun) rights restored after a certain time lapse and sometimes other conditions met for State felonies.

It seems there are too many rules in too many different places.

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 11:54 AM
LOL I am not now or ever wanted to be a criminal.

I wondered if there was a way to 'opt-out' of all these government rules and regulations so freedom can be restored.

Let's say I wanted to buy a new gun. Let's say I didn't have a particular ID for the state I want to buy it in (like a gun show or great sale across a state border).

Technically I cannot buy one because I do not have that particular state's ID. And getting someone to buy it for me (so I can enjoy that great deal) is illegal so I cannot do that either.

A lot of this seems unnecessary. And appears to have a money motive involved.

FYI: there is no country as you mentioned where one has the freedom from all these gun regulations.

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 11:55 AM
Most states follow federal guidelines and such. I think I read that under federal law, felons permanently lose their gun rights unless pardoned.Yes.

Of course that applies to federal felonies, not state felonies.No. That applies to any felony convictions, period.

In one state, Kansas, you could have your (gun) rights restored after a certain time lapse and sometimes other conditions met for State felonies.In any state it is possible to apply for restitution of rights. Long and difficult process, but it does happen.

It seems there are too many rules in too many different places.Did your high school have civics class? Do you understand how federalism works?

Read this really helpful page. There's a whole lot of great reading on that site:
http://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-government12/brief/ch/03/outline.aspx

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 11:58 AM
PS I would prefer to follow natural law instead of compulsory political/social laws.

Natural law generally means do no harm unless there is no alternative.

This would imply that if I wanted to CC or get guns, there would be no interference by anyone.

The ATF should be a convenient store not a government agency!

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 12:07 PM
I wondered if there was a way to 'opt-out' of all these government rules and regulations so freedom can be restored.Eh... ok, look, ask a pot smoker. Ask someone who wants to be married to three or four women. Ask someone who feels that private property is unnatural and s/he should have equal access to anyone else's possessions or lands. Ask someone who thinks they should be able to kill another person who tries to take their possessions. Ask someone who likes to drink beer while driving. Ask someone who's a stock broker and feels they should be able to call a friend in industry and get some tips on when to sell or buy. Ask someone who wants to fly their unregistered drone around, or doesn't like anyone in the government knowing they own a dog. Ask someone who feels compelled to eat other people (stick to corpses...no harm to another living person, right?).

Ask any of them if they've found a way to "opt out" and "have their freedom restored."

Let's say I wanted to buy a new gun. Let's say I didn't have a particular ID for the state I want to buy it in (like a gun show or great sale across a state border).

Technically I cannot buy one because I do not have that particular state's ID.Ok, so technically you can't buy because you are not a RESIDENT of that state, not actually because of the ID. IDs just make proving it a little easier. And that only applies to handguns. Long gun sales, from a dealer, are perfectly legal across state lines. AND, if it is a handgun you can still buy it and have it sent to your local dealer in your state to do the transfer. But anyway...

And getting someone to buy it for me (so I can enjoy that great deal) is illegal so I cannot do that either.
A lot of this seems unnecessary. And appears to have a money motive involved.
It seems unnecessary to you because it IS largely unnecessary from a practical viewpoint, for the vast majority of folks who would do those transfers.

However, the people of the country, via their legislative representatives, decided back in 1968 that it would be an acceptable restriction on freedom to make sales like that go through a system of federally licensed firearms dealers -- the point being that it would catch some folks who were trying to buy guns when society had decided they shouldn't have them.

People voted, legislators made laws. Here we are. Every law, ever, is a trade of somebody's freedom to do something in exchange for the promise of something else.

FYI: there is no country as you mentioned where one has the freedom from all these gun regulations.Oh, there are places where you can, at least practically speaking and maybe legally too, be free from our style of firearms laws, but they all seem to be the sorts of places no sane person with any choice in the matter would want to ... or dare to ... live.

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 12:09 PM
PS I would prefer to follow natural law instead of compulsory political/social laws.

Natural law generally means do no harm unless there is no alternative.

This would imply that if I wanted to CC or get guns, there would be no interference by anyone.


Uh, sure. Wouldn't we all? So?

crazysquirrel
January 8, 2016, 12:10 PM
indeed I remember some of the civics from HS.

Up until 1937 states took care of governing (as your site mentioned). But then things changed and we enjoyed more government overreach and loss of gun rights among other rights.

Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates.

When this country was created they founders felt that nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system (hence the incorporation of constitutional amendments for that end).

Binding people to agreements made centuries ago is like buying a house and saying that your kids can never sell it or must live in it is practically doing the same thing. You would bind future generations to your decisions.

How this applies to guns is this:

We have the 2nd amendment. No subsequent amendment modifying that amendment exists. Such an amendment requires consent of the people (today) via elected officials/representatives.

So rights enumerated come from our creator, not the government unless an Amendment is made.

Guns are to ensure liberty (initially) and for other legal situations.

IMHO everyone should be armed and trained as the 2nd purports that we should be doing all along.

You cannot be armed, carry, etc if there are laws infringing on that duty and right.

Why do we need background checks anyway? They are not necessary as criminals get guns anyway.

Why do we need 'permission' from the government (aka a CC license) to have and carry guns?
You own the item. You paid taxes on it, right?

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 12:18 PM
Yeah...ok then. Sure. We hear people say all of these things all of the time. And yet, here we are. You say you aren't a criminal and don't ever want to be one. Yet...

Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates.

Don't follow the laws passed by your representatives in government (and the representatives of all the OTHER people who want all sorts of different things than you do), and guess what? You're a criminal.

So, what does that do for ya?

Spats McGee
January 8, 2016, 01:20 PM
. . . .Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates.
Umm, if you don't follow "those government mandates," you become a criminal. From that point, things go downhill.

When this country was created they founders felt that nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system (hence the incorporation of constitutional amendments for that end).
Do you have a source for that claim? I have a pretty strong hunch that the founding fathers felt that overthrow of the government should be: (a) possible, and (b) a last resort. I have a hard time with the idea that they felt that "nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system."

Binding people to agreements made centuries ago is like buying a house and saying that your kids can never sell it or must live in it is practically doing the same thing. You would bind future generations to your decisions.
No, establishing a government to "bind" future generations bears very little resemblance to real estate transactions.

Besides, even in real estate, conditions frequently "run with the land" so as to bind future owners.

Frank Ettin
January 8, 2016, 01:35 PM
...Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates....Except if you don't in the real world there are some (often nasty) consequences.

What you believe to be true is not necessarily what actually is true in real life in the real world. And what you believe to be true won't change what actually is true in real life in the real world.


Some people understand reality to be what actually goes on in real life in the real world. Others confuse what goes on in their heads for reality, and those folks tend to have a much harder time dealing with real life in the real world.

...When this country was created they founders felt that nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system (hence the incorporation of constitutional amendments for that end).

Binding people to agreements made centuries ago is like buying a house and saying that your kids can never sell it or must live in it is practically doing the same thing. You would bind future generations to your decisions.....You might believe that, but, as noted above, that doesn't make it true. What is your evidence for those contentions.

On the other hand, the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2):...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.....That is not limited in time. It doesn't say "the supreme law of the land this week (or for the next two/ten/one hundred years)."

...IMHO everyone should be armed and trained as the 2nd purports that we should be doing all along....But, to be blunt, no one really cares what your opinion is -- at least with regard to what goes on in the real world. Your opinion will not change how things are actually done in the real world, and everyone will continue about their business without regard to you opinions.

...Why do we need 'permission' from the government (aka a CC license) to have and carry guns? You own the item. You paid taxes on it, right? The short answer is because that's what the laws are at present. Now you can join with others and try to get those laws change through political action, or you could try to talk a judge into overturning those laws, or you could be a criminal and violate those laws (and suffer the consequences if you are caught).

At the end of the day this sort of meandering through alternate realities really doesn't accomplish anything (unless some folks find it entertaining). We live in the real world, not any of those alternate realities.

tdstout
January 8, 2016, 02:06 PM
Eh... ok, look, ask a pot smoker. Ask someone who wants to be married to three or four women. Ask someone who feels that private property is unnatural and s/he should have equal access to anyone else's possessions or lands. Ask someone who thinks they should be able to kill another person who tries to take their possessions. Ask someone who likes to drink beer while driving. Ask someone who's a stock broker and feels they should be able to call a friend in industry and get some tips on when to sell or buy. Ask someone who wants to fly their unregistered drone around, or doesn't like anyone in the government knowing they own a dog. Ask someone who feels compelled to eat other people (stick to corpses...no harm to another living person, right?).

Not to derail the conversation here, but since when have we had to report owning a dog?

Sam1911
January 8, 2016, 03:05 PM
Not to derail the conversation here, but since when have we had to report owning a dog?

There are plenty of places in this country where having a dog license is mandatory if you keep one as a pet. You can break that law, and may get away with it, but it is the law. Your freedom to not report and register that animal only exists insofar as you're willing to break the law. (Or move to some other place, of course.)

TfflHndn
January 8, 2016, 03:07 PM
Well, my county has a licensing requirement for dogs. And cats. Same thing, isn't it?

P5 Guy
January 9, 2016, 02:26 PM
Banning backyard pools would do more for saving innocent toddlers from drowning.

Lost Sheep
January 9, 2016, 05:30 PM
Banning backyard pools would do more for saving innocent toddlers from drowning.
To take that analogy one increment further, note that backyard pools allow for toddlers to learn how to swim, just as having guns around allow children to learn gun safety.

I recognize that my extension of the analogy is more than labored, it is largely inappropriate. So, stop it with the swimming pool/car analogies.

I also recognize that we will not be able to ban all analogies used well or used badly (just as we will not be able to ban all weapons, or their uses).

So, I suggest we learn to point out (particularly when involved in a debate) where analogies have been extended beyond their applicability, and to do so persuasively. In this way, analogies become a useful tool to sway the undecided to see the truth.

Lost Sheep

p,s, Is the pool/car analogy analogous to the car/gun analogy? Or to the gun/pool analogy?

If you enjoyed reading about "Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!