Why does everyone feel so strongly about gun control, however the control in every o

[tyme]

But ultimately, we do NOT have a right to own or drive a car. That is the real difference.

Please tell me you don't believe that. No right to own a car? What about bicycles? chairs? computers?

Communism, here we come!

 

[JohnBT]

"We must get a drivers license to drive a car"

I know what you mean, but in fact many, many people don't get a driver's license. They're supposed to have one, but they don't because it's been revoked, suspended or they cannot afford insurance. I see a lot of them at work. During the interview they say they don't have a permit and/or owe fines, but I saw them drive up and park.

Anyway, I've always had a driver's license. I took the test in 1966. That's all, one test, one time.

When I upgraded my permit to include motorcycles in 1970 they gave me written test containing 10 questions. They did not make me ride the bike around the parking lot.

Is it any wonder that the roads are full of idiots who don't know how to drive?

My father, and many other elderly folks, never had to take a test back in the old days. He's 82 and still driving and doing a good job of it. Of course, he used to be a State Trooper and later a safety engineer for a major trucking line, so he's given a few driving tests, but never taken one. (Okay, he did take a high-speed evasive driving course, but he already knew how to pull 180s and such. I must say it was fun having my dad teach me to drive.)

John

 

[ssr]

Guns aren't regulated? What are you talking about. Gun manufacture, distribution, purchasing, shipping are highly regulated. What about government background checks. Who can buy guns and what types of guns is highly regulated and dictated by law. Now, the criminals, however, still find ways to skirt those laws.

You want the government to regulate guns to make them safer? Safe guns. If you are saying that you are buying the craziness that the anti-gunners put out. Guns are not safe. Yes, in the future the government will only let us have the safe guns that cannot kill people.

 

[FPrice]

"Yet no one cares."

What makes you say that? Are you judging by your perceived lack of conversation on this board about other areas of regulation in our lives? I would suggest that you consider visiting other forums to see what people say about other subjects before you make such rash assumptions.

And, as far as your comparison topic, driver's licenses, in this society it is virtually expected that a person get a driver's license. It is accepted that everyone except someone who demonstrates a complete lack of ability to drive in the first place (renewals for incompetant drivers are another story) will get a license.

Contrast that with the problems many people experience trying to get a firearms license in many states.

Not a very good comparison my friend.

 

[MP5]

A) Gun control is more important than any other aspect. My very ability to live as a free person depends on my ability to restrain my government if the need arises.

Do you really think personal freedom and that ability to restrain the government come primarily or exclusively from owning a gun? If the government becomes too intrusive for your tastes or treads on what you perceive to be your liberties, are you going to wage a one-man gun battle against the millions of cops, agents, and soldiers they could theoretically send your way? If the first couple cops don't kill you, the legal system will when they send you off to Death Row.

Your abililty to live as a free person in society comes from mutual acceptance of and acquiescence to the rule of law, together with a system of political checks and balances that more or less prevents systematic over-reaching governmental intrusions. Owning a gun might protect your from bears and burglars, but not from a whole government and the society that actively or passively supports it.

 

[MP5]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But ultimately, we do NOT have a right to own or drive a car. That is the real difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please tell me you don't believe that. No right to own a car? What about bicycles? chairs? computers?

Communism, here we come!

In practice, rights are granted or grasped--they don't appear out of the blue. When a group of people claims, "We have the right to bear arms or drive a car or own a computer" and then is willing to enforce and sustain that through political measures and mutual social acceptance, it then becomes a right. Otherwise, it's just empty theoretical talk, when you get down to it.

 

[ctdonath]

In NY, you MUST provide a Social Security Number to get a driver's license, or provide proof that you are inelegible for one. Yup, to get state permission to drive, you must enroll in a federal retirement program - one heck of a non-sequitor.

Also, any males of draftable age are automatically enrolled in the Selective Service program upon application for a driver's license. Yup, to get state permission to drive, you will be enrolled in a federal draft program - another heck of a non-sequitor.

Methinks the only reason there is no "right to drive" in the Bill Of Rights is because the Founding Fathers could not conceive of the preposterous notion of making it permit-only.

 

[halvey]

Maybe 'cause there's no "right to bear automobiles" amendment?

Exactly.

 

[joab]

I would care if you had to get a license to have children

Actually that might be a good idea

 

[Treylis]

But ultimately, we do NOT have a right to own or drive a car. That is the real difference.

Oh, boy.

We have the right to own ANYTHING we want, so long as possessing that thing doesn't pose a direct threat to anyone else or their property.

 

[Black Snowman]

I feel strongly about many things but without the RKBA it would make it impossible to protect the other things I feel strongly about. Like personal responsability and personal liberty. That's why I am more active in RKBA than in other important issues that I hold equally dear.

 

[Mikul]

This era of regulations, permits and licenses has come into being for three reasons. First, so many more people have no consideration for their fellow man than they used to. They don't leave notes when they hit your car, they mow their lawns 10 feet from your window at 6am, they build houses poorly and don't stand behind it, etc, etc. This leads people to get these stupid regulations passed as laws because it's too difficult to just fine or jail them for being a jerk. Second, there are people who are somehow annoyed by EVERYTHING that anybody else does so they exploit the system to pass the more annoying regulations. Third, the politicians soon learn that this is a great way to make an extra buck.

If we think of others before ourselves, the first problem would almost entirely disappear. If we demand prosecution for common-sense offensive behavior, most of the second problem would disappear. The third problem is beyond this scope of this diatribe.

Basically, we just need to take responsibility for our own actions and expect the law to hold others responsible for theirs. This applies to firearms, cars, dogs, etc. The laws that ban, regulate, license, or permitize because some people use them inappropriately is an offense to the American public. It also has the unintended consequence of leading some people to do things which are rude or improper becuase "if he shouldn't do it, it would be illegal."

 

[sturmruger]

My biggest pet peeve are people that post something that is moderately inflamatory, but then they don't stick around to comment on what anyone has said. Why post if you are not going to interact with the people that are responding to you.


Last I checked they called people that do that Trolls. I am so sick of ????ING TROLLS

 

[Gordon Fink]

Actually, this issue speaks to the heart of why we are slowly losing the battle to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

In short, gun owners have a problem. Many if not most of us are not pro-freedom. Too many gun owners will vociferously defend the RKBA but are far too eager to limit other freedoms.

Here are just a few examples of anti-freedom gun owners.

They want to impose their religion on the entire nation and can’t understand why those of us who don’t share their brand of spirituality resent that desire.

They would prohibit speech, art, and other forms of expression that the deem “indecent.â€

In fact, they don’t even recognize that all gun-control “laws†are wrong.

They would conscript citizens to fight unpopular and even unjust wars.

They would give the police even more power to search and seize, since “if you have nothing to hide …â€

They would dictate what people can or cannot do with their own bodies.

They would tell people whom they could or could not love and whom they could or could not marry.

They are comfortable with “traitors,†“terrorists,†and other suspected criminal enemies being denied legal representation and due process of law.

They would happily inflict draconian punishments on criminals far out of proportion with their crimes.

And for the record, we have a right to free movement. We may travel wherever we wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Accordingly, we have the right to own and use any means of conveyance useful for this purpose, on public roads by virtue of citizenship and on private roads by permission of the owners. If you think this is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, I suggest you read it again.

In the end, freedom is an all-or-nothing proposition. Until gun owners accept this fact and embrace all freedoms, even those that we dislike, we will continue to see the right to keep and bear arms ever more suppressed.

~G. Fink

 

[MP5]

I feel strongly about many things but without the RKBA it would make it impossible to protect the other things I feel strongly about. Like personal responsability and personal liberty. That's why I am more active in RKBA than in other important issues that I hold equally dear.

I understand that POV, but I think you could make an equally strong argument for the primacy or at least equal importance of First Amendment freedoms, for example. A gun alone won't win or maintain your freedom in any lasting, pervasive way.

In short, gun owners have a problem. Many if not most of us are not pro-freedom. Too many gun owners will vociferously defend the RKBA but are far too eager to limit other freedoms.

Precisely. That's why, while I'm pro RKBA, I'm strongly opposed to the Bush administration and most of what it represents: war based on deceit and lies, violation of basic human rights/dignity (torture of POWs--we're supposed to be better than the enemy, right?), denial of due process (a cornerstone of our democracy), invasion of privacy (see the so-called Patriot Act), disregard for the integrity and safety of the environment (the air, water, and food we all consume, the forests we hike or hunt in), labeling those who disagree with the administration or President as "unpatriotic"--the list goes on.

Voicing support for the RKBA while looking the other way as other freedoms or rights or protections are eroded makes little sense to me. The GOP, in its way, is just as much about big, intrusive government as the Democrats.

 

[DevilDog]

We have a right to own a car? Some of you must have different version of the bill of rights than I do. Is there a 28th amendment stating "the government shall not infringe upon a persons right to drive?"

Now I am not saying that the government has the power to outlaw car or any other "thing" from being bought on a whim.

The government has outlawed a number of drugs and alcohol and I cannot recall anyone making progress in the courts that those were unconstitutional. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that the courts have determined no inalienable rights to those.

20k people die every year in incidents involving automobiles. We don't outlaw them because we have right to them, but because the disruption to society would be too great.

I do not accept the idea that we have freedoms to do anything. IMHO, a person will never have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom has limits, otherwise it is just anarchy.

I do not accept the idea that our other freedoms are eroding away. 100 years ago, art had less freedom, you couldn't marry anyone you wanted, you could not distribute pornography unabated.

 

[Gordon Fink]

[sigh]

Article IX in amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.â€

Get it?

~G. Fink

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Article IX in amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Alex, I'll take "Things not found on the Cafeteria Wall" for $300.

 

[DevilDog]

Sorry, still do not buy IX protects my right to own a car.

 

[junyo]

Do you really think personal freedom and that ability to restrain the government come primarily or exclusively from owning a gun? If the government becomes too intrusive for your tastes or treads on what you perceive to be your liberties, are you going to wage a one-man gun battle against the millions of cops, agents, and soldiers they could theoretically send your way? If the first couple cops don't kill you, the legal system will when they send you off to Death Row.

I don't recall using or even implying that arms were a primary or exclusive option when it comes to restraining the government. There are plenty of other alternatives. But when all else fails, force is still the ultimate currency, accepted whereever people want to keep breathing, accept no substitutes. That you assume that an armed population cannot secure it's liberty by force if neccesary shows an ignorance of history. This country was founded by people that threw of a government that no longer represented their interests, and many a king, Generalissimo, or President for Life has ended his reign ventilated, or at the airport two steps ahead of said ventilation. No, one person couldn't singlehandedly defeat the forces of a tyranical government, however a) if you believe that a person standing up to tyranny would stand alone then you have a lower opinion of your fellowman than I do, b) those "millions of cops, agents, and soldiers" have to do a personal risk/reward calculation with regard to suppressing an armed citizen body that they wouldn't have to otherwise, the result of which would in all likihood cut those millions by a significant percentage, and b) given the alternatives, even if i had to stand alone, I'd prefer death over enslavement. If your comfortable with being a sheep, that's your right.

Your abililty to live as a free person in society comes from mutual acceptance of and acquiescence to the rule of law, together with a system of political checks and balances that more or less prevents systematic over-reaching governmental intrusions.

And if we could all get togather and sing Cum By Ya no one would have to lock their doors or pay for insurance. You casually toss off the word mutual, as if once you and I, or a handful of us agree then the system works. But we both know that's not true. Mutual in this case means everyone; everyone in government, every citizen that votes, even every person with the power to influence government. When in human history has everyone agreed about something, let alone something that is to the detriment of a good percentage of them? So while you're working on a plan to assure 100% acceptance of the rule of law, I'll rely on the self preservation instincts of burglars and tyrants. Throughout history, maintaining a credible threat has worked wonders for preserving friendly relationships.

With a "defeat Bush" slogan in your sig, and the memory of the 2000 elections in your head, I say that if you're willing to bet your freedom on "political checks and balances" then you're hopelessly naive.

Owning a gun might protect your from bears and burglars, but not from a whole government and the society that actively or passively supports it.

I think I've already addressed this, but I'll say it again. Even if death was inevitable, I'd prefer for it to be at the time and by the manner of my choosing, which is the ultimate freedom. Ask the ghosts of 6 million murdered Jews (murdered by a democratically elected government) if they would have rather had "political checks and balances" or a few train loads of rifles and ammo in the end.

 

[DevilDog]

My apologies for my previous terse reply - it was supposed to have more.

Here is why owning a car is not a right.

For me, rights are obstract and transcend technology. So, to be accurate, the 2A does not protect my right to own a firearm. It protects my right to defend myself, my family, my property, whether from criminal or an oppressive governemnt. A firearm is the only means the currently exist to do this in a reasonable manner. To apply the 2A to technology would mean the anti's have a case when they argue that the founding fathers did not mean to protect semi-auto military firearms.

Here is the other "test" I use for a right. If an oppressive government needs to restrict something to maintain its power base, than that thing is probably a "right". Oppressive governments control people by removing their ability to speak out (control their speech), their ability to worship as the see fit (control their beliefs) and by removing there immediate ability to resist (restrict small arms).

So, technically speaking, the 2A does not protect firearm ownership per se, it does not protect firearms as a possession. It protects them as the means to resist an oppressive government.

Also, "rights" are something a government takes away to control their populace. Even the Soviet Union did not ban cars.

Oppressive governments typically also control their population by limiting how they come and go - lots of borders, check points, etc. So Article IX applies - we have a right to move around our country without undue interference from the government, especially since that limits our right to assembly.

However, there are other means possible to do that other than just cars. For me, cars are a "need' because our society has evolved to the point that we need them to get around.

I see a difference between "need', "privilege" and "right". Conveyance is a right, a car is a societal need.

My 2 cents.

 

[Das Pferd]

Guns aren't regulated? What are you talking about. Gun manufacture, distribution, purchasing, shipping are highly regulated. What about government background checks. Who can buy guns and what types of guns is highly regulated and dictated by law. Now, the criminals, however, still find ways to skirt those laws.

Thats my point. I am saying that other areas in out lives, the object is not regulated as much as the owning of that object is.

However with firearms, both the object and the ownership are regulated.

Whenever I post, I always try to mean one thing but then say another, sorry.

I had two points.

One: Why do many people accept the regulation of other areas however when it comes to firearms they are die hard on there being no regulation. Yes people may talk amongst themselves that they dont like and want no regulation in their lives, however there is no lobbying compared to firearm regulation, in the size and scope. Most people, myself included, just accept it. We need to have a drivers license to drive a car. This was merely an example.

Two: Why does the regulation in our lives differ when it comes to firearms. The regulation of automobiles is more in the licensing and enforcing the laws then in the regulation of the actual automobile. Anyone can own a car if you have enough money. Owning one and not having a license is completely legal. However with firearms its different. Not only do they regualte the firearm, they say who can use them, who cant use them, where you can use them, and when you can use them.

 

[Das Pferd]

As for being inflammatory, it wasnt meant to be. However i can see how it might be construed as inflammatory.

Just because I post an idea contrary to the typical thinking on this board doesnt mean I am anti gun or against Bush or whatever. I was not implying that there should be regulation.

I posed a question to get people thinking and to answer my own thoughts.

I work and dont always check my postings. Sorry if I did not reply fast enough.

Most people see gun ownership as a right while ownership of a car is a privilage.

I say ownership of property, anykind, is a right. Its how we use that property which could affect society that is a privilage.

But sometimes I guess you must compromise.

 

[Gordon Fink]

DevilDog, I’ll ask the question again. Do you have a right to walk on public sidewalks? Or may the government require you to first get a pedestrian license or a travel permit?

~G. Fink

 

[DevilDog]

DevilDog, I’ll ask the question again. Do you have a right to walk on public sidewalks? Or may the government require you to first get a pedestrian license or a travel permit?

Yes. I am missing your point though - is it supposed to be an analogy to owning a car? Or driving a car on public roads without a license? (Not trying to be difficult, just trying to get your point).