Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would this cause an uproar if introduced?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by evan price, Nov 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. evan price

    evan price Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,476
    Location:
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    If the following bill were introduced, would it cause uproar in the general public?


     
  2. Jorg Nysgerrig

    Jorg Nysgerrig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,823
    Cars and guns, no matter how cleverly one tries to put it, are not analogous. To suggest such only muddies the issue.
     
  3. ants

    ants Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,503
    It's not about the guns, or the cars. It's about getting elected.

    Let's not miss the big point:

    You can't get votes by bashing high powered cars.
    You get enough votes to get elected by bashing guns.
     
  4. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    Evan,your point is well taken,and I Think well made.We all know that more people are killed in cars every year than by accidental shootings.Yet there is no widespread outcry to ban cars.Why?Where's the moral outrage?There isn't any.Why?About half the households in America have guns.This means the other half does not,and one group can demonize the other.Cars on the other hand,almost everybody has,or at least has firsthand knowledge of,and so they don't fear them.We fear the unknown.about half of this generation [if not more I'm generalizing here,not quoting hard stats] grew up in an urban environment without guns,or if there were guns,they were in the hands of muggers,and pointed at them.This fear of the unknown,coupled with and reinforced by the negative connotations of what little they DO know,leads to fear,and an almost instinctive,visceral dislike.
     
  5. Dookie

    Dookie Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    Spokane
    Next your going to be talking about making it illegal to shoot guns from a moving car, on the freeway.

    Thats crazy talk.
     
  6. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    THAT depends on whether there are deer on the freeway,we all know that!
     
  7. WardenWolf

    WardenWolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    5,884
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    I personally think nitrous oxide should be banned from all street-legal vehicles, though. Let's face reality: there is no legitimate use for it on a street vehicle, at all. The only legitimate use for it is for racing at the track, and even then it's very dangerous. Any passenger vehicle with such a system installed should be automatically rendered non-street legal.

    And yes, I can see all the anti-censorship people coming out against me on this. But honestly, what legitimate reason can you come up with for allowing it to be installed on a street vehicle? It effectively turns the vehicle into a bomb waiting to happen should it get into a rear-end accident, and using it anywhere but the track would be illegal and dangerous. There's lots of good reasons against allowing it, and none for it.
     
  8. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    ummm,you could ''huff'' it and get the giggles?
     
  9. WardenWolf

    WardenWolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    5,884
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Oh that's another reason: it could leak out and intoxicate the driver. They just keep stacking up.
     
  10. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    Seriously,The Wolf is right.Playing ''too fast,too furious'' on the street,with no real training is just asking to get somebody killed.It just happened two weeks ago,up here.''Drag raceing'',I don't know if Nitrous was involved or not,but the driver that killed the 14 year old girl,and injred her mom is looking at a life sentence.
     
  11. evan price

    evan price Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,476
    Location:
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    The point I'm making is, what is the difference between a high-powered firearm and a high powered car?


    A LOT more people die every year in accidents with cars than firearms and YET they want to limit our gun owning rights.

    Hey, NOBODY needs a car that goes faster than the speed limit, right? Anything else is irresponsible, right?

    How do you think this bill would sit in the press?

    In case some folks didn't "get it" this is the HR1022 "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act" rewritten by substituting automotive terms for the gun terms.


    What if "they" told you that since you added a fart pipe and a big aluminum wing on your trunk, that it was now a "race car" and banned from the street?
    Sounds irrational when you read it this way, doesn't it?

    Since when does a trunk spoiler, a set of racing decals and a fancy set of wheels & tires make a car a race car?

    Since when does a pistol grip, bayonet lug, and folding stock make a gun an assault weapon?

    How is a pistol with an 11-round mag "More Deadlier" than the same pistol with a 10-round mag?
     
  12. CRITGIT

    CRITGIT member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    404
    If that's the case then it more than suggests the voting public can and will do away with our guns. :confused:
    Of course the voting public should never be able to subvert the Constitution.:mad:
    Except, isn't that what just occurred in CA with Prop 8. :eek:
    One group decides something is "not acceptable" and.... "poof" it supersedes the Constitution.:eek: Doncha hate when that happens?!:eek: Ya better!

    CRITGIT
     
  13. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    5,810
    Location:
    Northern California
    We got your analogy,and it was a good one Evan,and a lot of work went into reviseing it the way you did.I hope you post that all over the place.I've used the bathroom analogy before [more people were killed in bathroom slips and fall one year than accidental shootings] but it just doesn't have the same impact.
     
  14. Geno

    Geno Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,847
    Funny, the analogy was already half-enacted by the insurance companies for surcharge to HP cars. When I purchased my Mustang 5.0, there were no surcharges. Then, about 2 or 3 years later, the insurance companies levied about a 20% to 25% surcharge for the powerful engine.

    Your analogy is well-made.
     
  15. onebigelf

    onebigelf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    You left out the argument that cars are used more frequently in crimes than guns are.

    John
     
  16. DoesItMatter

    DoesItMatter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Washington State
    I believe there are already certain states, I think California is one, where if there are too many street racing incidents with a suped-up car, they confiscate and crush the car while you watch.
     
  17. LouforAI

    LouforAI Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    What?

    Is this for reals? Got to be kidding
     
  18. mugsie

    mugsie Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    726
    Someboday has waaaayyy too much time on their hands!
     
  19. subierex

    subierex Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    271
    This can't be serious. This would take over half the cars in America off the road, maybe closer to 3/4.

    If not serious, as someone above said, somebody has way too much time on their hands. I have leaves that you could be raking. :neener:
     
  20. Vonderek

    Vonderek Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,408
    Although apples-to-oranges it's still an apt analogy that causes people to think...all the more so since driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. When discussing gun control with antis I have used the analogy "Speed figures into almost all vehicular deaths. A car can go 65 mph with a 50-horsepower engine. Therefore there is no legitimate reason or need for a car to have more than 50 horsepower...Any car exceeding that number should be classified as an assault vehicle and banned for the sake of public safety. Therefore your Honda Civic/Lexus/Nissan or whatever should be banned."
     
  21. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,608
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    The automobile/firearm analogy has been presented before.

    Most folks overlook that automobiles are regulated heavily. They're universally registered unlike guns where only a couple of states require registraion. The operators are licensed unlike only a couple of states that require FOID cards just to purchase. They're restricted as to operation just like most states that require carry permits (except for the couple that don't and the couple that you can't get one). They're restricted completely from come areas just like some guns in some areas. Let's be careful about what analogies we draw since gun prohibitionists, while wrong headed, are not stupid.
     
  22. expvideo

    expvideo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    21st century Americans believe that driving is a right. Same goes for cell phones. But they don't believe the same about owning and carrying guns.
     
  23. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    It's not a bad argument but the problem is there is no place in the Constitution that GUARANTEES THE RIGHT to have whatever car you want.

    A shame people don't get that.d
     
  24. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,536
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Mike, nitrous oxide isn't a fuel; it is pretty much inert, and only breaks down into nitrogen and oxygen at high temperatures, i.e. when you inject it into a cylinder along with extra gasoline; it also sharply cools the intake charge. (It is two parts nitrogen to one part oxygen, BTW.)

    Out of curiosity, do you think there are any legitimate uses for a supercharger on a street vehicle? How about a turbocharger? A nitrous oxide setup is just another way to do exactly the same thing as a supercharger or turbocharger, i.e. put more gasoline and oxygen into the cylinder, in order to provide a given power output using a smaller-displacement engine than you would otherwise need. That's why you usually see nitrous on 2-liter imports, not 5+ liter domestic cars.

    To those criticizing the analogy, the analogy in the OP is not guns = cars; it is stupid legislation = stupid legislation.

    I did something similar at one point on DU:

    http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/24

    It is just putting AWB idiocy into a context that is more familiar to most people.
     
  25. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    Central Florida
    OK
    now everybody join the NHRA.
    We must defeat this!!!

    AFS
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page