That cars vs. guns regulation argument again

Guns and Their Users Should Be Regulated Like Cars and Drivers Are
As a car enthusiast, the parallels between automobiles and guns — both of which are beloved objects that become lethal weapons when used in malice or handled incorrectly – strike me as obvious. They ought to be regulated similarly.

Sure, let’s regulate them the same way:

  • Manufacturers would have to submit samples of each model equipped with all factory options to the ATF to make sure it couldn’t go too fast or too far.
  • Car manufacturers would be sued when anyone uses a stolen vehicle in a DUI, hit&run, bank robbery, or speeding, despite laws that limit law suits to cases where the manufacturer actually did something wrong.
  • Dealers would have to run criminal background checks on all buyers.
  • The dealer would lose his Federal Automobile License if a customer filled out the ATF form 4473 incorrectly.
  • When buying a car from a dealer, you would have to disclose your race.
  • Some states would require you to obtain a license to buy a car, separate from the driver license.
  • You wouldn’t be able to drive your car to the post office, many restaurants and bars, or past schools.
  • Several states would require you conceal your car while driving.
  • MADD would encourage people to “swat” you if they see your car.
  • Some states would limit your car to a ten gallon tank, and require another background check when you refuel.
  • New York would limit you to 20 gallons of gas every 60 days.
  • California would require that your car be designed to be difficult to refuel without tools.
  • Your driver license might not be recognized by other states.
  • High capacity vans and buses would be banned in several states. Ditto large pickups.
  • You would lose your right to own a vehicle if you have a financial manager to help you with your money.
  • You wouldn’t be allowed to purchase a small economy car unless you are at least 21 years old, but you could buy a truck at 18. Congresscreeps would argue for raising the purchasing age for everything to 25.
  • Racing stripes would be banned, along with a host of other cosmetic features.
  • If anyone in your household got a DUI, your car would be confiscated.
  • Cities would have their own car ownership and driver license laws that differ from others within the same state.
  • NYC would only issue 37,000 driver licenses in the entire city of 8.5 million people, and only if you are rich or politically connected.
  • Driving your car in town would be prohibited.
  • In many areas, you would be required to drain your gas tank, lock your steering wheel, and store your car in a locked garage when not in use. The gasoline would have to be in a separate locked room.
  • Many states would allow the sheriff to deny you a driver license without cause.
  • Mufflers would be heavily taxed and registered, and outright banned in many areas. Where you can get a muffler, the process could take as much as 18 months.
  • The ATF would periodically flip-flop on whether your brakes are mufflers.
  • The ATF would also classify your shoelaces as high capacity buses, and charge you $200 dollars per lace.
  • When driving cross-country, you’d actually be required to drain your fuel tank and lock your car up in a shipping container. Get a large handtruck.
  • If you want to sell your old junker, the ATF will consider you a dealer, requiring hundreds of dollars in fees and months of waiting for approval. Then you’d be subject to random inspections of all your property.

Shall I go on?

And this:

More than a little eerily, roughly as many people die from automobile-related deaths in America each year as from guns.

There are an estimated 253 million automobiles on the road vs. an estimated 336-750 million guns in civilian hands. Despite being much less numerous, vehicles are used to kill more people than are guns. I don’t think the problem here is guns and their owners.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

8 thoughts on “That cars vs. guns regulation argument again”

  1. I am no longer in the debate or argument business with those who would deprive or restrict me in my essential fundamental Liberty.

    My response to all who raise the issue of disarming or infringing me or mine, is quite blunt and quite crude.

    Simply put:

    ‘F*ck you’. I refuse to discuss or argue the issue with you. I will not participate, obey or comply and any law, rule, regulation, court edict of other attempts and anyone who uses or threatens force and attempts to take my Liberty will be put down like a rabid dog. That is all.

    1. While I agree with your stance, my response is a bit different. A variation of David Codrea’s, “No. Your move.”

      No. What do you propose to do now?
      -or-
      No. Whatcha gonna do ’bout it?

      Instead of preemptively saying you’ll “put down” anyone who threatens force to remove your liberties, make them think it through. Make them tally up how many doors will need to be kicked in, how many children will need to witness men with guns invading their homes, how many SWAT teams will take lethal return fire, how many funerals they’re willing to make happen to see their dreams come true.

      Make them work the numbers. Use a low-ball estimate of 100 million gun owners in America (the real number is unknown; I think the 120-150 million range is more accurate). Now estimate a lowly 10% refuse to comply at first, and 3% are willing to fight over it. Again, probably low-ball numbers, but that’s still 3 million pissed off, armed Americans…

      … which outnumbers the total number of police officers in America four-to-one.

      Their schemes cannot work, but you telling them that isn’t enough. Like any grade-school math class, the lesson isn’t going to stick until they work it out for themselves.

      1. Umm, no.

        As I said, I am not interested in debate, discourse or statistical chicanery, regardless of how it is presented, what ‘side’ it supports, or how factual it may be.

        I simply declare that if anyone comes and attempts to take my essential fundamental Liberty, they are gonna be treated just like a rabid dog would be.

        Dirt simple.

        I long ago woke up to the flat-fact that there is no arguing or convincing those with an appetite for the individual Liberty of other people. Collectivism is a twisted sickness and they will NEVER give up their gnawing away at the very foundations of this ‘once’ Republic and of Liberty itself.

        You go on and play their game on the board that they have set up for you. Not me.

        I make my stance simple and clear, as it should be. Trying to bargin or reason with collectivist-gerbils is useless because they do not and will not see reason and the only bargin they accept is one where Liberty is compromised, even if a bit, which advances their agenda, not mine, not Liberty, not the Constitution.

        Any force potentially used by me (and I hope it will not become necessary) will be purely in defense of my Life, my Liberty and/or my Property and will only be against force first initiated against me and mine.

        I wil not comply. I refuse to obey and I will not discuss it beyond clearly setting out my stance.

        That is all.

  2. big difference between cars and guns…i cant believe nobodys really nailed it here yet…

    CARS AINT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS…GUNS ARE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *