Drivers Licenses and the 2A
- Thread starter JCF
- Start date
- Status
Al Norris?
So what authority does the state have to require people to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle?
I have to admit, while I don't like government restricting an individuals right to self defense (by any means necessary and available) I don't think that fireamrs should be totally unregulated, just like I don't think motor vehicles should be totally unregulated. When you drive a car you are taking the lives of others in to your hands, and atleast an initial profeciency should be shown in order to do this, as well as a minimum age. When you own a firearm you are taking the public safety in to your own hands, and I think that there are people who should not own, maintain, or possess firearms. i.e violent criminals, persons with mental illness causing breaks with reality or judgement impairments, persons not of a responsible age (without adult supervision) and I also think that persons addicted to mind altering drugs should also not be allowed to own or possess firearms.
The reason for this is because a firearm (like a motor vehicle) has the capacity to affect everyone around the owner/operator. Another persons right to freedom ends where my right to safety from them begins.
I'm not saying that regulation of firearms and motor vehicles has been abused, because it most certainly has, I'm saying that I don't think either one of these (firearms or motor vehicles) should be totally free of regulation.
So what authority does the state have to require people to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle?
I have to admit, while I don't like government restricting an individuals right to self defense (by any means necessary and available) I don't think that fireamrs should be totally unregulated, just like I don't think motor vehicles should be totally unregulated. When you drive a car you are taking the lives of others in to your hands, and atleast an initial profeciency should be shown in order to do this, as well as a minimum age. When you own a firearm you are taking the public safety in to your own hands, and I think that there are people who should not own, maintain, or possess firearms. i.e violent criminals, persons with mental illness causing breaks with reality or judgement impairments, persons not of a responsible age (without adult supervision) and I also think that persons addicted to mind altering drugs should also not be allowed to own or possess firearms.
The reason for this is because a firearm (like a motor vehicle) has the capacity to affect everyone around the owner/operator. Another persons right to freedom ends where my right to safety from them begins.
I'm not saying that regulation of firearms and motor vehicles has been abused, because it most certainly has, I'm saying that I don't think either one of these (firearms or motor vehicles) should be totally free of regulation.
The reason for this is because a firearm (like a motor vehicle) has the capacity to affect everyone around the owner/operator. Another persons right to freedom ends where my right to safety from them begins.
Nonsense, and this is obviously a troll post but I will answer it. You have no "right to safety." You might as well put prohibition back in place because of the dangers of violent drunks.
I'm not saying that regulation of firearms and motor vehicles has been abused, because it most certainly has, I'm saying that I don't think either one of these (firearms or motor vehicles) should be totally free of regulation.
Neither of them is free of regulation now, in case you hadn't noticed.
When a government regulated license to operate a firearm allows me to use it in the public sphere at will, provided I do so responsibly, I'll consider thinking about it.
The licensing/registration for firearms argument is weak. I can own a car without being licensed to operate it nor do I have to register it, if it is not operated in the public sphere. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that I can own a vehicle without the restrictions above even before I'm able to vote. We put fewer restrictions on operation of a lethal weapon (car) by people of age sixteen than we do on firearms.
jm
Nonsense, and this is obviously a troll post but I will answer it. You have no "right to safety." You might as well put prohibition back in place because of the dangers of violent drunks.
I'm not saying that regulation of firearms and motor vehicles has been abused, because it most certainly has, I'm saying that I don't think either one of these (firearms or motor vehicles) should be totally free of regulation.
Neither of them is free of regulation now, in case you hadn't noticed.
When a government regulated license to operate a firearm allows me to use it in the public sphere at will, provided I do so responsibly, I'll consider thinking about it.
The licensing/registration for firearms argument is weak. I can own a car without being licensed to operate it nor do I have to register it, if it is not operated in the public sphere. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that I can own a vehicle without the restrictions above even before I'm able to vote. We put fewer restrictions on operation of a lethal weapon (car) by people of age sixteen than we do on firearms.
jm
Sergeant Bob
Member
Freedom is too scary for some people.
Al Norris
Member
Remember that thing about Freedom isn't free? Well, it isn't safe either!
So what do you all think??
Given its' ability to facilitate the subjugation of the citizenry (and given our more or less collective and vigorous opposition to other initiatives of similar end), is acceptance of driver licensing, etc., as this person observed, indeed a deference to "reasonable compromise" in violation of the 2A?
Given its' ability to facilitate the subjugation of the citizenry (and given our more or less collective and vigorous opposition to other initiatives of similar end), is acceptance of driver licensing, etc., as this person observed, indeed a deference to "reasonable compromise" in violation of the 2A?
Last edited:
Sergeant Bob
Member
It does tend to make more people accept the concept of "licensing" for other things. You hear it all the time, as if licensing something is going to make it safer.
Cars and drivers are licensed, why shouldn't guns be too.
As with guns, it doesn't matter how much training or skill you have, if you drive or handle a gun like an idiot.
Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the U.S., even though most of those people who caused accidents exhibited the minimum proficiency required and had licenses.
Some people should have to get a license to have children, etc.
In the end, its about nothing other than control and money.
Indeed.
I think that you bring up some very good points Sergeant Bob (as did the individual catalyzing the discussion), and I think that the entire conundrum bears significant consideration in that it potentially has direct impact upon the validity / viability of the whole “no compromise” ideology.
I have to admit that I am very reluctant to espouse a position which advocates the abandonment of basic regulation and competencies for drivers, etc. However, at the same time, if one is to be truly objective in their analysis, they must genuinely question whether or not this reluctance is indeed based, as suggested by a poster, in fear as opposed to fact. Perhaps there would in fact be no detriment to the safety of the community if drivers were to become unregulated. This is certainly the argument that we prefer when similar scrutiny is given propositions of mandatory licensing/training for CCW.
Then again, I find it interesting how many of us are quick to advocate wholesale deregulation of anything remotely related to firearm ownership as it suits us, but then become staunch proponents of vigorous governmental licensing and regulation of so many other behaviors which we feel potentially compromise the safety, morality, etc. of our society.
When I read the vigorous exhortations of “no compromise” on this forum I have to truly wonder to myself sometimes just how lean some of the posters really are in their resolve… and just how far they are really willing to go.
No compromise... in its' true form, entails more than just gun laws. As Al Norris pointed out freedom is neither free nor safe.
I wonder, given the potential implications, if true freedom is what people really want.
I think that you bring up some very good points Sergeant Bob (as did the individual catalyzing the discussion), and I think that the entire conundrum bears significant consideration in that it potentially has direct impact upon the validity / viability of the whole “no compromise” ideology.
I have to admit that I am very reluctant to espouse a position which advocates the abandonment of basic regulation and competencies for drivers, etc. However, at the same time, if one is to be truly objective in their analysis, they must genuinely question whether or not this reluctance is indeed based, as suggested by a poster, in fear as opposed to fact. Perhaps there would in fact be no detriment to the safety of the community if drivers were to become unregulated. This is certainly the argument that we prefer when similar scrutiny is given propositions of mandatory licensing/training for CCW.
Then again, I find it interesting how many of us are quick to advocate wholesale deregulation of anything remotely related to firearm ownership as it suits us, but then become staunch proponents of vigorous governmental licensing and regulation of so many other behaviors which we feel potentially compromise the safety, morality, etc. of our society.
When I read the vigorous exhortations of “no compromise” on this forum I have to truly wonder to myself sometimes just how lean some of the posters really are in their resolve… and just how far they are really willing to go.
No compromise... in its' true form, entails more than just gun laws. As Al Norris pointed out freedom is neither free nor safe.
I wonder, given the potential implications, if true freedom is what people really want.
Last edited:
PedalBiker
Member
My brother in law was rear ended recently by a hit and run driver. He recorded the license plate and reported the crime to the local police. He was told that that person had no driver's license, no insurance and had a warrant out for his arrest. They also told him they didn't have a recent address and weren't going to look for him.
My sister had a wallet stolen. The gas station the crooks used to fill up their car with my sister's stolen credit card caught the transaction on tape. My sister kept records of their use of her stolen calling card until it could be deactivated. The local police refused to accept any of the information given to them, refused to get a subponea to get a copy of the gas station tape and were of no help at all recovering any of the stolen property or with suggestions for preventing the thieves from using the stolen documents for future identity theft crimes.
In North Carolina I was hit on purpose by a local brute, I got his plate number and called the crime in (hit & run). The guy had a suspended license and no insurance, the cops only gave him a ticket for passing in a no passing zone.
Tell me again the benefits of licensing drivers?
My sister had a wallet stolen. The gas station the crooks used to fill up their car with my sister's stolen credit card caught the transaction on tape. My sister kept records of their use of her stolen calling card until it could be deactivated. The local police refused to accept any of the information given to them, refused to get a subponea to get a copy of the gas station tape and were of no help at all recovering any of the stolen property or with suggestions for preventing the thieves from using the stolen documents for future identity theft crimes.
In North Carolina I was hit on purpose by a local brute, I got his plate number and called the crime in (hit & run). The guy had a suspended license and no insurance, the cops only gave him a ticket for passing in a no passing zone.
Tell me again the benefits of licensing drivers?
Gordon Fink
Member
It keeps the people at the DMV employed.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Sergeant Bob
Member
Most people only want true freedom as it applies to themselves, and freedom to impose their will upon others.
ctdonath
Member
I contend that's a rights violation. The Founding Fathers would have certainly have enumerated the unencumbered right to vehicular travel had they managed to conceive of licensing thereof. This is a perfect example of the justified fears of those who resisted a Bill Of Rights on the grounds that non-enumerated rights would not be considered rights at all (the vague catch-all 9th and 10th amendments notwithstanding).
Ditto. It's my stuff, why the heck should the gov't care?
Social Security itself is wrong - confiscating wealth from people to give to others, such that the former cannot then provide for their own social security.
Don't think I have a problem with that. Letting the government know you're alive (and, at the other end, dead), seems relevant to civilized society.
The Constitution provides for federal training, equipping and calling out the militia. They can't do that if they don't know you're part of it. The Militia Act of 1792, written promptly after the 2nd Amendment, detailed the process of registering able-bodied males 17-45.
That said, I have a problem with that registration being used to compel citizens to fight well outside our borders; repelling invaders, tyrants and other enemies yes, invading other nations (for any reason other than their direct assault on US soil) no.
Bingo!
Registration is used to control citizens - it is not about controlling crime. A few very limited registrations are Constitutional; most are not.
Just out of curiosity... what is your feeling on issues such as professional licensing, trade licensing, etc.. ?
I understand of course that their is no Constitutional protection exempting an electrician, psychologist, etc from being mandated to license and demonstrate competency.
However, issues of Constitutionality aside, given our somewhat collective position that such requirements are not particularly effective in ensuring competency in any event, is there really any purpose in requiring an electrician, etc to be licensed? Particularly given the fact that unlicensed electricians, etc ply their trades quite succesfully in violation of such requirements as it is.
ctdonath
Member
All too often government-required licenses have more to do with bureaucracy growth, civilian control and revenue enhancement than assurance of competency.
If I knowingly choose to hire someone who is not licensed, then that should be my choice, and not a punishable offense.
If I knowingly choose to hire someone who is not licensed, then that should be my choice, and not a punishable offense.
I can appreciate that perspective to some extent... particularly where one is concerned with work performed upon their own property, etc.
The larger issue however is that training and licensure, many of us would argue, does nothing to ensure competency, and does nothing to prevent malfeasance by those who choose not to comply with the mandate. It is one of the major arguments we use to against mandatory training for CCW.
If this is the case, is there really any point at all in licensing trades? There is really nothing stopping a contractor, employer, etc from hiring unlicensed workers to perform the structural or electrical work on a housing project... or a bridge perhaps
A frightening concept in a way. I don't know.
DMK
Member
You can not legislate morality or ethics. The immoral and unethical will always follow the path of least resistance around the law. That is something that neither right nor left ever seem to get through their thick skulls.
- Status
