The Huffington Post
So there is this device that is in widespread use -- almost every
family has at least one. Used carelessly or incorrectly it can do damage
or even create lethal effects. It is often used in the commission of
crimes, and theft of the device itself is a common crime.
This device must be registered -- anyone who wishes to own one has to
give personal information and obtain insurance against its misuse. The
owner is required to display evidence of registration prominently, and
every device has a unique identification number so even if it is found
without the evidence of registration, the owner can be identified and
located. Further, even non-owners of the device must be licensed if they
wish to use one. The licensing involves extensive testing on knowledge
of the rules for operating the device and practical operation of the
device under real-world conditions.
If a used device is sold, the sale must be registered with the
government and the buyer is subject to all the above requirements. If
the device is retired or destroyed, its registration must be cancelled.
Improper or illegal operation of the device can result in revocation
of the operator's license, confiscation of their registration, and
cancellation of their insurance.
Notwithstanding all this, there is almost no resistance to the
registration, licensing, and insurance requirements. Registration and
license fees provide significant revenue to government agencies, and
insurance provides a substantial private market as well. To date no
government has undertaken a mass confiscation of these devices, nor has
their use been significantly restricted -- in fact there are more of
these devices in private ownership than at any time in history.
I suspect you've figured out by now that the device in question is
motor vehicles -- cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc. If someone proposed
the above set of requirements for gun ownership, however, the outcry
from the NRA and its disciples would be loud and long.
Privilege v right.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
There are many answers to this, but here's one important one: Show me where vehicles are enumerated in the Constitution as a right of the people.
ReplyDeleteEvery failing gun-rights supporter's refuge.
DeleteFailing? Not by a long shot. But it's telling that you disparage the Constitution as a refuge.
DeleteNo one is trying to ban cars... Yet. When enough people are using electric cars, you bet there will be calls to ban "dirty" cars that aren't like theirs. Banners invariable try to ban other people's things, not their own.
ReplyDeleteAlso, no doubt you caught the incorrect statement that you need to register a car to own one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've heard this argument, literally, more times than I can count. I'm going to ignore those who make this argument, but who are so new to the discussion about gun control vs gun rights they have, perhaps, not had the time or the occasion to think this one through completely. No, my comments are for those who know or can reasonably be expected to know the implications of this argument. I'll largely ignore the constitutional issues, which cannot be overstated, and touch on just a few other issues.
ReplyDeleteThe basic premise of the argument is that we should treat guns and shooters like we do cars and drivers. So, when I ask gun control folks if that's what they mean with statements like what we find from the Huffington Post, they tend to say "yes". Now the fun begins. To list just a few of the issues involved in treating guns and shooters like we do cars and guns:
The state governments rather than the federal government design and administer the programs.
Each state has its own laws regarding insurance, registration and licensing requirements.
Each state offers full reciprocity with other states for visitors from those states.
Generally speaking, these requirements are limited to operation on public property.
Meeting the minimal legal requirements of a given state, which are designed to not be onerous, places the burden of "shall issue" on the state.There is no "needs" test.
Fees, which vary by state, are generally designed to be as non-burdensome as possible.
I don't usually even get through this much of a list before I'm told the idea really wasn't to treat guns and shooters like cars and drivers. Essentially, the very analogy that was given and endorsed by the gun control advocate is now declared, by that same person, to be false.
The argument, then, can be simplified to this:
Guns and shooters should be treated like cars and drivers (an analogy)
Guns and shooters aren't really like cars and drivers (the analogy is false)
I don't REALLY want to treat guns and shooters like cars and drivers
For those who prefer brevity above all else, the guns/shooters:cars/drivers pro gun-control argument can be further reduced to this:
I lied
I thought the point of the article was that guns need to be batter regulated and controlled. That's all.
DeleteThat's the point that you find in everything, Mikeb.
DeleteRetired Mustang, you're spot on. If all the gun control freaks wanted was to be reasonable, we could have cars and guns regulated in the same way. Ownership is the owner's business alone, but when the object is taken out in public, the owner has to have a license that is issued to everyone who meets basic standards. That license is renewed without a bunch of red tape. That license is good everywhere, and there are no -free zones.
Alternatively, we could regulate cars the way we regulate guns.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns
I don't feel like getting a government permission slip to exercise my rights. Period.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
That's really mature of you. You sound like a high-school kid, all rebellious and easily-offended.
Delete