Also, when was the last time anyone had to get a safety inspection? Back when we did have to get them, all I remember it consisting of was paying $5 to have an attendant replace an obnoxious decal.
Time to ban cars?
- Thread starter poke2001
- Start date
Also, when was the last time anyone had to get a safety inspection? Back when we did have to get them, all I remember it consisting of was paying $5 to have an attendant replace an obnoxious decal.
And driving simply isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.
The solution is simple. Government funded and issued cars. Regulate the hell out of them, governors to limit speed, and make the rich pay for them so that we are all driving the same safe, slow, homogenized vehicles. Everyone gets a voucher to buy theirs. And gray. All cars must be painted gray. Ethanol and electric only. Oh, and nobody owns their car, you just use and leave at a central place as needed. And no more than one child per car. Somebody MUST think about the children!!!!
Car taxes and registration-a state thing to collect taxes, not required unless you drive on public roadways.
Driver's license-a state thing required to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways and testing to get one only demonstrates the minimum basic understanding of traffic laws and simple vehicle maneuvers.
Car insurance-a state thing required only to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
I can buy a vehicle of my choice and solely operate it on my own private property and I'm not in violation of any law governing the above.
None of the above is dictated or regulated by the federal government. None of the above infringes on any of my rights on my own property.
Hmmmmmm.
States can create their own gun legislation provided that it doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment and they have, even laws governing the possession of firearms on property not owned by the individual and in cases where carrying is legal, what is legal and what isn't about carrying.
There are also plenty federal laws regarding firearm ownership and lawful possession.
The problem isn't guns, it is the people who use them. To make a direct comparison to vehicle deaths, would it really make sense to require people to wear sunglasses while driving rather than a seatbelt? Because that is exactly what has been proposed regarding gun control. Sometimes you have to use some common sense and identify the real problem and find real solutions, not just throw out more shit that won't solve anything.
Back to cars, limiting the speed limit to 10 mph would prevent the vast majority of traffic fatalities. Why the hell doesn't the federal government step in and do just that?
Driver's license-a state thing required to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways and testing to get one only demonstrates the minimum basic understanding of traffic laws and simple vehicle maneuvers.
Car insurance-a state thing required only to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
I can buy a vehicle of my choice and solely operate it on my own private property and I'm not in violation of any law governing the above.
None of the above is dictated or regulated by the federal government. None of the above infringes on any of my rights on my own property.
Hmmmmmm.
States can create their own gun legislation provided that it doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment and they have, even laws governing the possession of firearms on property not owned by the individual and in cases where carrying is legal, what is legal and what isn't about carrying.
There are also plenty federal laws regarding firearm ownership and lawful possession.
The problem isn't guns, it is the people who use them. To make a direct comparison to vehicle deaths, would it really make sense to require people to wear sunglasses while driving rather than a seatbelt? Because that is exactly what has been proposed regarding gun control. Sometimes you have to use some common sense and identify the real problem and find real solutions, not just throw out more shit that won't solve anything.
Back to cars, limiting the speed limit to 10 mph would prevent the vast majority of traffic fatalities. Why the hell doesn't the federal government step in and do just that?
One more thing regarding this car/gun thing. Why doesn't the federal government mandate all people wear bullet resistant vests when out of their home? There is a plethora of data to support that concept, which is thousands of more times data than supports limiting the size of banana clips.
syskatine said: ↑
"TOTAL BEATDOWN!
I've never heard the car scenario before, awesome point. @poke2001 as usual makes a halfwit point (using a very regulated activity to compare to gun control) that blew up in his face like Wile E. Coyote. It's been raised about 50 times on these boards, and the arguments are always the same. Then lapse into hysteria and overstatements.
If we could have the functional equivalent of car regs (licensure, registration, liability insurance, etc.) transposed on guns, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat.
@JonnyVito I agree re: paltry liability limits. The best counter is to maximize your UM coverage. I hate the insurance industry but you should always take the UM coverage. Especially in Oklahoma."
Click to expand...
Medic007 said:
"Wrong thread @syskatine, but thanks for the reply as I know you're probably busier than the rest of us slackers. I do have a couple real questions for you.
Tell me how this liability insurance for owning a gun works in your mind. I don't think any insurers exist that issue policies for that. Or are we talking general liability and do those policies specifically include gun ownership provisions? And if we're comparing to vehicles, would I have to have insurance to just own a gun because that's not even required for car ownership unless I operate it on public roads and/or have a lien holder. Will my rates be determined by what type, how many, and the purpose of the guns I own much like for cars? What will be the penalty for not having it and how will authorities know and/or enforce the requirement? Would it only apply to conceal and carry permit holders?
Serious questions. Folks who throw this stuff out as a viable option should have real life solutions and answers and that's why I ask."
syskatine responded to us, just not in the right thread. I just wanted to share related posts from the wrong thread to continue to discussion.
"TOTAL BEATDOWN!
I've never heard the car scenario before, awesome point. @poke2001 as usual makes a halfwit point (using a very regulated activity to compare to gun control) that blew up in his face like Wile E. Coyote. It's been raised about 50 times on these boards, and the arguments are always the same. Then lapse into hysteria and overstatements.
If we could have the functional equivalent of car regs (licensure, registration, liability insurance, etc.) transposed on guns, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat.
@JonnyVito I agree re: paltry liability limits. The best counter is to maximize your UM coverage. I hate the insurance industry but you should always take the UM coverage. Especially in Oklahoma."
Click to expand...
Medic007 said:
"Wrong thread @syskatine, but thanks for the reply as I know you're probably busier than the rest of us slackers. I do have a couple real questions for you.
Tell me how this liability insurance for owning a gun works in your mind. I don't think any insurers exist that issue policies for that. Or are we talking general liability and do those policies specifically include gun ownership provisions? And if we're comparing to vehicles, would I have to have insurance to just own a gun because that's not even required for car ownership unless I operate it on public roads and/or have a lien holder. Will my rates be determined by what type, how many, and the purpose of the guns I own much like for cars? What will be the penalty for not having it and how will authorities know and/or enforce the requirement? Would it only apply to conceal and carry permit holders?
Serious questions. Folks who throw this stuff out as a viable option should have real life solutions and answers and that's why I ask."
syskatine responded to us, just not in the right thread. I just wanted to share related posts from the wrong thread to continue to discussion.
Aw shucks, pleeze enlotten us gun toten right wing rednecks with yer infinite wisdom and wall yer at it tell us how yew couldn't wait to get the hell away from the Okies.
The insurance issue could be solved with exchanges and a nice website. It will save every American $2500/year when implemented.
@syskatine - "If we could have the functional equivalent of car regs (licensure, registration, liability insurance, etc.) transposed on guns, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat."
There are no restrictions on private ownership of any kind of automobile. There are on where you can drive them, but not on owning them.
The mentally ill can own them. Criminals can own them. People can do anything they want to with them on private property. They are only regulated on public roadways.
So based on your heartbeat decision, I would be able to legally buy a belt-fed 20mm chain gun and shoot anything I want to on my private property. Works for me.
@syskatine, You are so deliciously easy. I mean, you are better than a stress ball laced with valium. Turkey shoot. 8 foot basketball goal kind of easy.
The above graphic comes form an excellent article on FORBES, which you won't click on because you would need an open mind (instead of a concrete statist ideology) to read because it destroys your driveby comment on guns/cars. So let me cut and paste a few pertinent quotes from the article.
But first let me just point out that a car has proven again - once in Vegas and once as close to home as it can get on this board, a car is a VERY effective terrorist weapon. Perhaps moreso than any imaginable civilian gun. It takes nothing but the right timing and trajectory to kill and maim dozens. People who want to kill dozens will always ALWAYS have a way to do so by means that aren't Constitutionally protected you statist tool.
But, I digress...
"Fully 96% of non-suicide death rates from firearms are due to homicides (again, derived from Table 10). There is no defender of the Second Amendment who argues that the Constitution accords citizens the freedom to kill one another. Clearly, anyone who uses a firearm for that purpose should be severely punished; moreover, no one could credibly include murderers in the count of “responsible” gun owners. So the rate of “accidental” firearm deaths is astonishingly small: 1.4 deaths per million guns, i.e., less than 2 per day."
Statistically insignificant. Add in "mass shootings" and it rises from 1.4 deaths per day to 1.4 deaths per day. Moving on...
"Contrast that with cars. About 31% of all vehicle deaths are due to drunk drivers–a group for whom society has little sympathy. Many would be prepared to declare that driving drunk is criminal and that those found guilty of killing someone in an inebriated condition warrant being dealt with severely."
So, while Americans (of any political stripe) might disagree on the role of government to protect us from ourselves, we almost all agree that a role of the government is to some degree, to protect us from the actions of others and that nearly 1/3 of fatal vehicular accidents are committed via criminal negligence.
"But it also turns out that the drunk drivers themselves constitute 65% of drunk driving deaths. If we remove the non-driver deaths from drunk driving from our count of overall non-driver vehicle accident victims, we end up with a net of about 12,700 non-driver “accidental” deaths a year (36.2 accidental deaths for every million vehicles). In short, the typical car is 25 times as likely to kill someone accidentally as the typical gun."
So, what's your retort to that? Cars are essential? Guns are, what? An optional luxury? I'm curious how you will spin that if you nut up and reply at all.
Why doesn't your "team" invest itself in awareness campaigns and enforcement of existing laws as regards automobile safety? It would be 25 times more effective than anything you could ever possibly enact via gun regulation. Best case scenario.
There are no restrictions on private ownership of any kind of automobile. There are on where you can drive them, but not on owning them.
The mentally ill can own them. Criminals can own them. People can do anything they want to with them on private property. They are only regulated on public roadways.
So based on your heartbeat decision, I would be able to legally buy a belt-fed 20mm chain gun and shoot anything I want to on my private property. Works for me.
@syskatine, You are so deliciously easy. I mean, you are better than a stress ball laced with valium. Turkey shoot. 8 foot basketball goal kind of easy.
The above graphic comes form an excellent article on FORBES, which you won't click on because you would need an open mind (instead of a concrete statist ideology) to read because it destroys your driveby comment on guns/cars. So let me cut and paste a few pertinent quotes from the article.
But first let me just point out that a car has proven again - once in Vegas and once as close to home as it can get on this board, a car is a VERY effective terrorist weapon. Perhaps moreso than any imaginable civilian gun. It takes nothing but the right timing and trajectory to kill and maim dozens. People who want to kill dozens will always ALWAYS have a way to do so by means that aren't Constitutionally protected you statist tool.
But, I digress...
"Fully 96% of non-suicide death rates from firearms are due to homicides (again, derived from Table 10). There is no defender of the Second Amendment who argues that the Constitution accords citizens the freedom to kill one another. Clearly, anyone who uses a firearm for that purpose should be severely punished; moreover, no one could credibly include murderers in the count of “responsible” gun owners. So the rate of “accidental” firearm deaths is astonishingly small: 1.4 deaths per million guns, i.e., less than 2 per day."
Statistically insignificant. Add in "mass shootings" and it rises from 1.4 deaths per day to 1.4 deaths per day. Moving on...
"Contrast that with cars. About 31% of all vehicle deaths are due to drunk drivers–a group for whom society has little sympathy. Many would be prepared to declare that driving drunk is criminal and that those found guilty of killing someone in an inebriated condition warrant being dealt with severely."
So, while Americans (of any political stripe) might disagree on the role of government to protect us from ourselves, we almost all agree that a role of the government is to some degree, to protect us from the actions of others and that nearly 1/3 of fatal vehicular accidents are committed via criminal negligence.
"But it also turns out that the drunk drivers themselves constitute 65% of drunk driving deaths. If we remove the non-driver deaths from drunk driving from our count of overall non-driver vehicle accident victims, we end up with a net of about 12,700 non-driver “accidental” deaths a year (36.2 accidental deaths for every million vehicles). In short, the typical car is 25 times as likely to kill someone accidentally as the typical gun."
So, what's your retort to that? Cars are essential? Guns are, what? An optional luxury? I'm curious how you will spin that if you nut up and reply at all.
Why doesn't your "team" invest itself in awareness campaigns and enforcement of existing laws as regards automobile safety? It would be 25 times more effective than anything you could ever possibly enact via gun regulation. Best case scenario.
@syskatine - "If we could have the functional equivalent of car regs (licensure, registration, liability insurance, etc.) transposed on guns, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat."
There are no restrictions on private ownership of any kind of automobile. There are on where you can drive them, but not on owning them.
The mentally ill can own them. Criminals can own them. People can do anything they want to with them on private property. They are only regulated on public roadways.
So based on your heartbeat decision, I would be able to legally buy a belt-fed 20mm chain gun and shoot anything I want to on my private property. Works for me.
@syskatine, You are so deliciously easy. I mean, you are better than a stress ball laced with valium. Turkey shoot. 8 foot basketball goal kind of easy.
The above graphic comes form an excellent article on FORBES, which you won't click on because you would need an open mind (instead of a concrete statist ideology) to read because it destroys your driveby comment on guns/cars. So let me cut and paste a few pertinent quotes from the article.
But first let me just point out that a car has proven again - once in Vegas and once as close to home as it can get on this board, a car is a VERY effective terrorist weapon. Perhaps moreso than any imaginable civilian gun. It takes nothing but the right timing and trajectory to kill and maim dozens. People who want to kill dozens will always ALWAYS have a way to do so by means that aren't Constitutionally protected you statist tool.
But, I digress...
"Fully 96% of non-suicide death rates from firearms are due to homicides (again, derived from Table 10). There is no defender of the Second Amendment who argues that the Constitution accords citizens the freedom to kill one another. Clearly, anyone who uses a firearm for that purpose should be severely punished; moreover, no one could credibly include murderers in the count of “responsible” gun owners. So the rate of “accidental” firearm deaths is astonishingly small: 1.4 deaths per million guns, i.e., less than 2 per day."
Statistically insignificant. Add in "mass shootings" and it rises from 1.4 deaths per day to 1.4 deaths per day. Moving on...
"Contrast that with cars. About 31% of all vehicle deaths are due to drunk drivers–a group for whom society has little sympathy. Many would be prepared to declare that driving drunk is criminal and that those found guilty of killing someone in an inebriated condition warrant being dealt with severely."
So, while Americans (of any political stripe) might disagree on the role of government to protect us from ourselves, we almost all agree that a role of the government is to some degree, to protect us from the actions of others and that nearly 1/3 of fatal vehicular accidents are committed via criminal negligence.
"But it also turns out that the drunk drivers themselves constitute 65% of drunk driving deaths. If we remove the non-driver deaths from drunk driving from our count of overall non-driver vehicle accident victims, we end up with a net of about 12,700 non-driver “accidental” deaths a year (36.2 accidental deaths for every million vehicles). In short, the typical car is 25 times as likely to kill someone accidentally as the typical gun."
So, what's your retort to that? Cars are essential? Guns are, what? An optional luxury? I'm curious how you will spin that if you nut up and reply at all.
Why doesn't your "team" invest itself in awareness campaigns and enforcement of existing laws as regards automobile safety? It would be 25 times more effective than anything you could ever possibly enact via gun regulation. Best case scenario.
Mega, I'm the one gettin owned ITT, @syskatine said so. Please stop providing data.
Might as well close up the shop. Mega just ate everybody's cupcakes. I had my eye on a red velvet one and he ate my eye. Like from my face.
Pretty obvious response, isn't it? I don't understand the relevance. If x causes 10,000 deaths per year, and y causes 20,000 deaths per year, I guess we don't address x until y is resolved? is that your thinking? Are you sure you're not just looking for excuses?
And how many people do you know have vehicles only for use on their private property, and not on roads? I shouldn't ask ask that -- survivalist types probably do.
Pretty obvious response, isn't it? I don't understand the relevance. If x causes 10,000 deaths per year, and y causes 20,000 deaths per year, I guess we don't address x until y is resolved? is that your thinking? Are you sure you're not just looking for excuses?
And how many people do you know have vehicles only for use on their private property, and not on roads? I shouldn't ask ask that -- survivalist types probably do.
Jesus that's week. Good job not totally ducking it I guess? Merry Christmas!
Completely irrelevant to the point, but while you're thinking that you've somehow made a point, you didn't . Ever hear of those thingies called ATVs? There's a ton of different types. I'll bet you even know at least one person that owns one. Ever see those out on the road?
The point is that the government doesn't regulate a vehicle unless it's used on public roads. Why should the government regulate what guns and accessories I own and use on my private property?
well as usual you don't have a response other than a couple adjectives. Feels good, huh?
And a merry Christmas to you and yours!
I probably know a dozen drag racers with trailer towed cars that definitely are not street legal. Slicks, straight pipes, nonfunctional lights, no tags. It's actually incredibly common.
Well, that's that. Since race cars aren't registered, we shouldn't register guns. Can't argue with that logic.
Pretty obvious response, isn't it? I don't understand the relevance. If x causes 10,000 deaths per year, and y causes 20,000 deaths per year, I guess we don't address x until y is resolved? is that your thinking? Are you sure you're not just looking for excuses?
And how many people do you know have vehicles only for use on their private property, and not on roads? I shouldn't ask ask that -- survivalist types probably do.
I am not worried about the guy on the right he will be with me. The people that would we would be fighting are the fat hogs in DC that take all my money and spend it like first round draft picks. Of course they have nukes also so not much really I could do to actually totally stop them. Now me owning an AR-15 and let's say some country like China or a Russia invade America well I can again fight beside the guy on the right with my already available weapon and ammo.
The pic is ridiculous and hilariously misinterprets and mistranslates the views of both guys pictured - the physical and experiential disparity between the two, the loyalty of the guy in the right to tyranny, the hatred of the US military by the guy on the left and fundamentally, the entire point of the 2nd amendment and pledge of enlistment.
American soldiers aren't the target of Liberty minded Americans. American soldiers "solemnly swear (or affirm) that (they) will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They are huge supporters of gun rights and have fought for American all Constitutional freedoms for over 200 years. There is zero chance that the guy on the right fires on the guy on the left over gun rights. The two would never come into conflict.
Statist strongmen and their soft, silly but useful political idiots are the domestic enemies that are (and should be) concerned.
Well, I'm learning quite a bit. All this time I thought the second amendment was about the militia and security of the state. Turns out, it's not about resisting our own government people with.... guns? So who exactly are we defending ourself against under the second amendment mega? You've carved out soldiers. Cool. Who then? Cops? Health inspectors? Highway patrolmen? Sanitation workers? Who?
