This is an old meme that has been tired and silly for a long time.
You keep bringing this out, we keep pointing out the problems with it, you deflect by saying, "Well that just shows guns and cars are a bad comparison, which shows that you pro gun guys are stupid."
An interesting concept, lets looks at those requirements,
Licenses, competency tests, registration, insurance, are all only required if you drive the car anywhere off your property. Penalties for carrying off your property under the influence. Got that here in Minnesota and its stricter than for cars. Suspension of license for multiple offences. That's called revocation or suspension of a carry permit if you violate the rules. It also sort of flies in the face of your one strike and your out philosophy. And of course, though it isn't mentioned, drivers licenses are shall issue. Once you've done your time so to speak, you can get it back. Police have no discretion when it comes to you getting one. You don't lose your license if your arrested for a violation, but not charged, acquitted, etc. And of course, even though every state has different licensing requirements, your drivers license is good in every state of the union, so we would need to throw in nationwide reciprocity of carry permits. Be careful what you wish for.
You guys love to proffer that nonsense about "off your property." What percentage of the driving that happens in the US every day is on private property. You love to dismiss dead kids and mass shootings because the percentages aren't high enough. How high to you think the private property driving is?
Suspension of carry permits for multiple offenses flies in the face of my one-strike-you're-out? You must be kidding.
Also your "shall issue" thing is talking about concealed carry. We're talking about gun ownership.
You guys love to proffer that nonsense about "off your property." What percentage of the driving that happens in the US every day is on private property.
But what's being discussed here is making gun laws like car laws. Car laws do not require licensing, registration, or insurance for use on private property. If guns are to be regulated in the same way, then private gun ownership at home would have to be similarly treated as none of the government's damned business.
Also your "shall issue" thing is talking about concealed carry. We're talking about gun ownership.
Who is "we"? There is nothing to indicate that the "one million moms and dads against 'gun violence'" are limiting the discussion to ownership, to the exclusion of carry.
Come to think of it, you were just bitching about us pointing out that car ownership does not require licensing, registration, or insurance--only public driving (the nearest automotive analog to carrying a gun in public) does. Now you want us to shut up about carrying (public use) of firearms, which again is analogous to driving a car in public, and talk only about ownership?
"You guys love to proffer that nonsense about "off your property."
Actually it seems quite germane. We often discuss the utility of firearms for self defense in the home as opposed to in public. And most gun control groups "claim" to be ok with possession of gun in the home, read private property. But then they want may-issue carry permit systems, and would likely support no-issue permit systems.
"Also your "shall issue" thing is talking about concealed carry. We're talking about gun ownership."
Again, all of the licensing of cars mentioned in the meme you posted deals with cars being used in public. And all of the licensing and registration, operator licensing, etc. are only required off of private property, just like permitted carry. To make it more applicable to your wishes, you would want to require proof of operator's training to be presented at the dealer before you can purchase. Also, if you were ever in an accident, or gotten a ticket, even once, or for that matter, ever gotten a ticket and you were acquitted, you don't get to buy. Also, if the police don't think you have the right temperament, or just because they don't like cars, you don't get one then either.
Nicely said guys. Licensing gun ownership in the style of licensing driving is not treating guns like cars, Mike
Also, regarding your question about driving on private property--that's how many of us learned and how others continue to--driving on private property long before getting a permit or license.
Also, folks drive non-street legal jalopies that they soup up for their private fun. Treating guns like cars would mean that while we might not be able to carry around our modified guns, there would be nothing to stop me from souping up an old AK variant just for fun times on my property as long as I kept it there and shot it responsibly.
Yes, you guys are masters at poking holes in things in order to avoid the point. The point of this admittedly clumsy comparison is that guns are not regulated properly. There should be licensing, registration and insurance requirements and better accountability for misuse. That's the point. Keep pretending you don't get it.
The point of this admittedly clumsy comparison is that guns are not regulated properly. There should be licensing, registration and insurance requirements and better accountability for misuse.
That may indeed be the intended "point," but you--and "one million moms and dads against 'gun violence'"--have yet to effectively make it, or to effectively rebut our counterarguments.
Kurt, I haven't rebutted your arguments because I've agreed with them. You have poked holes in the post. You're good at that. But by doing so you've completely avoided the point.
Kurt, I haven't rebutted your arguments because I've agreed with them.
You've "agreed with them"? You "agree" with us by saying we "proffer nonsense"? By saying that "all [I've] got" is "the private property hilarity"?
Can I perhaps be forgiven for thinking that looks suspiciously like disagreement?
If I've "completely avoided the point," it's because you've completely avoided making the "point" effectively.
You post a meme that takes a position that even you are now forced to admit is untenable, and then accuse us of avoiding the "point" that we're apparently supposed to accept on the mere basis of you having asserted it.
We're still waiting for you to do better than that.
You'd like that, Mikeb? That licenses would be "shall issue," and that every state would have to honor every other state's licenses? Or that the whole licensing/registration/insurance requirements don't apply to guns not taken out in public (because you don't need a license, registration, or insurance for cars that are not driven on public roads)?
Besides, I've never heard of "severe jail time" for driving while under the influence unless there were aggravating factors like gross malfeasance and a high death toll (and even then, you're fine if you're rich enough), or that the perpetrator is a chronic offender.
That's all you got, Kurt, the private property hilarity.
"I've never heard of "severe jail time" for driving while under the influence unless" What's that supposed to mean? You've heard of "serious jail time" for carrying a gun while drunk?
So my driver's license will be respected in all U.S. territory, my guns will be legal everywhere, I can buy a gun anywhere, no guns will be banned and no capacities restricted, and the test to qualify will essentially check to see if I'm a warm body? Oh, and there won't be any effort to deny gun rights?
All cars are not legal to drive anywhere. There are laws that define if a car is street legal, or not. If your car lacks certain mechanics, it is restricted from use on the public streets. There are efforts and laws to deny disqualified drivers and they do get their license revoked.
In the same way that some firearms--full auto guns--are heavily regulated, some vehicles are. But there are no limits on horsepower, number of cylinders, maximum possible speed, or any other analogues to magazine capacity. Stick shifts and automatics are both legal, while many gun control freaks want to ban semiautomatic firearms. Need I go on?
Yes go on if you want to look more ridiculous. All rights and privileges have limitations. I was responding to your first false notion, that cars don't have restrictions, yet guns do.
Thanks for proving your outside the law thinking. YOU do not make the laws. YOUR opinion is not law. Your comparison, as usual, is ridiculous. Now you have just said rights and privileges do not have limitations. Truly an uneducated opinion, and wrong.
Which has nothing to do with the conversation. Nice try at diversion. I would agree with your statement, so why are you constantly screaming about your gun rights being taken away, they are not by your own admission. Again, I'm not anti gun and I don't want to take away your guns, or your right to own a gun. Your arguments are simply extremist and ridiculous, as usual. .
Are they calling a night in the drunk tank "severe jail time"? You don't do time for a DUI unless you kill someone. Even the license suspension time is minimal for a first offense, with some driving privileges retained the whole time (driving to school or work).
OK, How about the reality, no background check required to purchase, once I have it i can take it anywhere, one license covers me every where I go, no limit on size, power or features. Now in CA law doesnt apply to many drivers (illegals) no having to get permission from local law, no one actively trying to deny my ability to get one. No one strike your out. age at 16. I could go on but hopefully your get the point. MikeZ
violating those things doesn't lead to a loss of rights though, nor does the registration, licesne or insurance become much of an issue in ca. Now days most departments wont even enforce traffic laws on large groups off people. (illegals) And this whole conversation disregards the fact that driving is by definition a privilege, not spelled out in the constitution where as the right to keep and bear arms is, so how do restrictions on a privilege equate to open restrictions on a constitutional right? The irony is that many of the same cities that try to make gun ownership and carry as inconvenient as possible view punishing illegals for breaking the law driving as unconstitutional. MikeZ
This is an old meme that has been tired and silly for a long time.
ReplyDeleteYou keep bringing this out, we keep pointing out the problems with it, you deflect by saying, "Well that just shows guns and cars are a bad comparison, which shows that you pro gun guys are stupid."
Rinse, repeat.
Actually, this "meme" makes a lot of sense.
DeleteOf course it makes sense to you, Mikeb. Simon was talking about reasonable people.
DeleteYES !!!
ReplyDeleteAn interesting concept, lets looks at those requirements,
ReplyDeleteLicenses, competency tests, registration, insurance, are all only required if you drive the car anywhere off your property.
Penalties for carrying off your property under the influence. Got that here in Minnesota and its stricter than for cars.
Suspension of license for multiple offences. That's called revocation or suspension of a carry permit if you violate the rules. It also sort of flies in the face of your one strike and your out philosophy.
And of course, though it isn't mentioned, drivers licenses are shall issue. Once you've done your time so to speak, you can get it back. Police have no discretion when it comes to you getting one. You don't lose your license if your arrested for a violation, but not charged, acquitted, etc.
And of course, even though every state has different licensing requirements, your drivers license is good in every state of the union, so we would need to throw in nationwide reciprocity of carry permits.
Be careful what you wish for.
You guys love to proffer that nonsense about "off your property." What percentage of the driving that happens in the US every day is on private property. You love to dismiss dead kids and mass shootings because the percentages aren't high enough. How high to you think the private property driving is?
DeleteSuspension of carry permits for multiple offenses flies in the face of my one-strike-you're-out? You must be kidding.
Also your "shall issue" thing is talking about concealed carry. We're talking about gun ownership.
You guys love to proffer that nonsense about "off your property." What percentage of the driving that happens in the US every day is on private property.
DeleteBut what's being discussed here is making gun laws like car laws. Car laws do not require licensing, registration, or insurance for use on private property. If guns are to be regulated in the same way, then private gun ownership at home would have to be similarly treated as none of the government's damned business.
Also your "shall issue" thing is talking about concealed carry. We're talking about gun ownership.
Who is "we"? There is nothing to indicate that the "one million moms and dads against 'gun violence'" are limiting the discussion to ownership, to the exclusion of carry.
Come to think of it, you were just bitching about us pointing out that car ownership does not require licensing, registration, or insurance--only public driving (the nearest automotive analog to carrying a gun in public) does. Now you want us to shut up about carrying (public use) of firearms, which again is analogous to driving a car in public, and talk only about ownership?
Make up your mind.
"You guys love to proffer that nonsense about "off your property."
DeleteActually it seems quite germane. We often discuss the utility of firearms for self defense in the home as opposed to in public. And most gun control groups "claim" to be ok with possession of gun in the home, read private property.
But then they want may-issue carry permit systems, and would likely support no-issue permit systems.
"Also your "shall issue" thing is talking about concealed carry. We're talking about gun ownership."
Again, all of the licensing of cars mentioned in the meme you posted deals with cars being used in public. And all of the licensing and registration, operator licensing, etc. are only required off of private property, just like permitted carry. To make it more applicable to your wishes, you would want to require proof of operator's training to be presented at the dealer before you can purchase. Also, if you were ever in an accident, or gotten a ticket, even once, or for that matter, ever gotten a ticket and you were acquitted, you don't get to buy. Also, if the police don't think you have the right temperament, or just because they don't like cars, you don't get one then either.
Nicely said guys. Licensing gun ownership in the style of licensing driving is not treating guns like cars, Mike
DeleteAlso, regarding your question about driving on private property--that's how many of us learned and how others continue to--driving on private property long before getting a permit or license.
Also, folks drive non-street legal jalopies that they soup up for their private fun. Treating guns like cars would mean that while we might not be able to carry around our modified guns, there would be nothing to stop me from souping up an old AK variant just for fun times on my property as long as I kept it there and shot it responsibly.
Yes, you guys are masters at poking holes in things in order to avoid the point. The point of this admittedly clumsy comparison is that guns are not regulated properly. There should be licensing, registration and insurance requirements and better accountability for misuse. That's the point. Keep pretending you don't get it.
DeleteThe point of this admittedly clumsy comparison is that guns are not regulated properly. There should be licensing, registration and insurance requirements and better accountability for misuse.
DeleteThat may indeed be the intended "point," but you--and "one million moms and dads against 'gun violence'"--have yet to effectively make it, or to effectively rebut our counterarguments.
We get that that is the point you're trying to get across. The problem is that you keep failing to make the case convincingly.
DeleteKurt, I haven't rebutted your arguments because I've agreed with them. You have poked holes in the post. You're good at that. But by doing so you've completely avoided the point.
Delete"The problem is that you keep failing to make the case convincingly."
DeleteSo says Simon, a raving, gun-rights extremist. What a surprise.
Kurt, I haven't rebutted your arguments because I've agreed with them.
DeleteYou've "agreed with them"? You "agree" with us by saying we "proffer nonsense"? By saying that "all [I've] got" is "the private property hilarity"?
Can I perhaps be forgiven for thinking that looks suspiciously like disagreement?
If I've "completely avoided the point," it's because you've completely avoided making the "point" effectively.
You post a meme that takes a position that even you are now forced to admit is untenable, and then accuse us of avoiding the "point" that we're apparently supposed to accept on the mere basis of you having asserted it.
We're still waiting for you to do better than that.
Mikeb, it's not that we don't understand what you're arguing. It's the fact that your argument is wrong.
DeleteDon't forget other rights--believe that was one of your titles for me and others in the past. "Gun and other rights extremists."
DeleteYou'd like that, Mikeb? That licenses would be "shall issue," and that every state would have to honor every other state's licenses? Or that the whole licensing/registration/insurance requirements don't apply to guns not taken out in public (because you don't need a license, registration, or insurance for cars that are not driven on public roads)?
ReplyDeleteBesides, I've never heard of "severe jail time" for driving while under the influence unless there were aggravating factors like gross malfeasance and a high death toll (and even then, you're fine if you're rich enough), or that the perpetrator is a chronic offender.
That's all you got, Kurt, the private property hilarity.
Delete"I've never heard of "severe jail time" for driving while under the influence unless" What's that supposed to mean? You've heard of "serious jail time" for carrying a gun while drunk?
You've heard of "serious jail time" for carrying a gun while drunk?
DeleteUm, yeah--on this post that you put up:
severe jail time for weapons used while under the influence
I'll respond elsewhere to "the private property hilarity."
So my driver's license will be respected in all U.S. territory, my guns will be legal everywhere, I can buy a gun anywhere, no guns will be banned and no capacities restricted, and the test to qualify will essentially check to see if I'm a warm body? Oh, and there won't be any effort to deny gun rights?
ReplyDeleteAll cars are not legal to drive anywhere. There are laws that define if a car is street legal, or not. If your car lacks certain mechanics, it is restricted from use on the public streets. There are efforts and laws to deny disqualified drivers and they do get their license revoked.
DeleteIn the same way that some firearms--full auto guns--are heavily regulated, some vehicles are. But there are no limits on horsepower, number of cylinders, maximum possible speed, or any other analogues to magazine capacity. Stick shifts and automatics are both legal, while many gun control freaks want to ban semiautomatic firearms. Need I go on?
DeleteYes go on if you want to look more ridiculous. All rights and privileges have limitations. I was responding to your first false notion, that cars don't have restrictions, yet guns do.
DeleteThen you are hereby barred from exercising your speech rights to talk about gun control. After all, rights have limitations, yes?
DeleteThanks for proving your outside the law thinking. YOU do not make the laws. YOUR opinion is not law. Your comparison, as usual, is ridiculous. Now you have just said rights and privileges do not have limitations. Truly an uneducated opinion, and wrong.
DeleteAnonymous, since you're falling back on your bad habits, I'll just leave you with this:
DeleteIn most states, in Congress, and in the Supreme Court, gun rights are protected and are expanded regularly. There's nothing you can do about that.
Which has nothing to do with the conversation. Nice try at diversion.
DeleteI would agree with your statement, so why are you constantly screaming about your gun rights being taken away, they are not by your own admission. Again, I'm not anti gun and I don't want to take away your guns, or your right to own a gun. Your arguments are simply extremist and ridiculous, as usual. .
Are they calling a night in the drunk tank "severe jail time"? You don't do time for a DUI unless you kill someone. Even the license suspension time is minimal for a first offense, with some driving privileges retained the whole time (driving to school or work).
ReplyDeleteOK, How about the reality, no background check required to purchase, once I have it i can take it anywhere, one license covers me every where I go, no limit on size, power or features. Now in CA law doesnt apply to many drivers (illegals) no having to get permission from local law, no one actively trying to deny my ability to get one. No one strike your out. age at 16. I could go on but hopefully your get the point.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
How about a license requirement to own a gun and a registration requirement when you do? How about liability insurance?
Deleteviolating those things doesn't lead to a loss of rights though, nor does the registration, licesne or insurance become much of an issue in ca. Now days most departments wont even enforce traffic laws on large groups off people. (illegals) And this whole conversation disregards the fact that driving is by definition a privilege, not spelled out in the constitution where as the right to keep and bear arms is, so how do restrictions on a privilege equate to open restrictions on a constitutional right? The irony is that many of the same cities that try to make gun ownership and carry as inconvenient as possible view punishing illegals for breaking the law driving as unconstitutional.
DeleteMikeZ
This is about when Mike comes in and says its a bad comparison, even though he's the one who posted it- not Laci.
ReplyDeleteNo, but this might be about the time you pull out the old gun ownership is a right and car ownership is a privilege.
DeleteMike Z. got the "driving is a privilege" thing in there. Did you catch that, TS?
DeleteAnd you tossed in that it was a clumsy, inexact comparison up above. We got that too.
Delete