I don't understand the poll?
Forget the poll. The poll was ill-conceived. It is incomprehensible unless you have a thorough grasp of the issue being discussed.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the privilege of driving a car or motor vehicle.
Correct. The 2A, in its literal presentation, also has nothing to do with illegal immigration, law enforcement technology, etc.
Yet, it is argued repeatedly that these issues, among others, are tangibly associable as potential infringements (or vehicles of infringement) of the 2A.
I don’t personally agree. I don’t personally have a problem with driver licensing and testing. In fact I think it should be a more rigorous process than it is. But then I also don’t espouse the militant “no compromise” position taken by many 2A supporters.
By the same token however, I consider myself to be relatively open minded, and I do spend time questioning and reassessing the basis of what I believe. So I am not prepared to
completely discount the claims of the “no compromise” crowd. There may in fact be validity to their position.
My question however is this:
If we are to adopt a position against anything that potentially infringes the 2A, a “no compromise” position; if we are to extend this to include issues as protracted as illegal immigration (on the basis that it will change the social landscape of the nation to the extent that negative legislative change may occur) and law enforcement technology (on the basis that it will make it easier for the police to apprehend us once we are deemed felons), does it not stand to reason that we would take a position (and a vigorous one at that) against driver licensing – our governments’ primary databases of personal information – well before concerning ourselves with so many other of these issues?
If you are really talking about driver's licenses, they date back to the early 1900's when cars began appearing. It was intended as a certificate demonstrating minimum competence which of course relates to safety.
Yes. You are correct. And once again, this evokes a question in that many/most of us prefer to argue that certificates demonstrating minimum competence are of minimal value in actually realizing their intended purpose.
It may also be argued that dispensation with such requirements for driver licensing might represent a very important philosophical precedent insofar as 2A rights are concerned.
So, what does this have to do with guns?
About as much as any other hotly debated collateral issue on this forum it seems.
I’m beginning to think nothing at all.
