Quantcast
Stop it with the car/driver license analogies! - Page 3 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Legal

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 29, 2013, 03:53 PM   #51
Pizzapinochle
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 25, 2013
Posts: 534
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.
Pizzapinochle is online now  
Old August 24, 2013, 01:11 PM   #52
Ogre One
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 27, 2011
Location: East of Mississippi; south of Mason Dixon.
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by swathdiver View Post
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.
Ogre One is offline  
Old December 6, 2013, 07:35 PM   #53
Bluelight
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 36
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.
Bluelight is offline  
Old December 15, 2013, 07:34 PM   #54
kvtcomdo
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 16, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 151
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.
__________________

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
NRA Benefactor life; TSRA Life; GOA Life: CCRKBA Life: US Army 1972-80
kvtcomdo is offline  
Old December 15, 2013, 09:02 PM   #55
oneounceload
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2008
Location: Hot and Humid FL
Posts: 12,661
^^^ Someone gets it
__________________
"Support our troops; we'll need them to overthrow our government"

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
oneounceload is online now  
Old December 15, 2013, 09:21 PM   #56
larryh1108
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 29, 2008
Location: Litchfield County, CT
Posts: 1,692
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.
__________________
A closed mind is an empty mind.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old December 15, 2013, 09:41 PM   #57
PedalBiker
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 19, 2006
Location: Colofornia
Posts: 479
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.
PedalBiker is offline  
Old January 7, 2014, 09:31 AM   #58
450 Dakota
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 6, 2014
Posts: 42
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.

Last edited by 450 Dakota; January 7, 2014 at 09:37 AM.
450 Dakota is offline  
Old January 22, 2014, 07:25 PM   #59
Bluelight
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 36
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???
Bluelight is offline  
Old January 22, 2014, 08:12 PM   #60
larryh1108
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 29, 2008
Location: Litchfield County, CT
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
What is next one to go?
Warrantless searches of personal papers, emails, phone calls???
Seen the news lately?
__________________
A closed mind is an empty mind.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old January 22, 2014, 09:21 PM   #61
Lost Sheep
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 16, 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,115
2nd Amendment is NOT a right

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
Lost Sheep is offline  
Old January 23, 2014, 07:35 PM   #62
Bluelight
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 10, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 36
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.
Bluelight is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.