arma virumque cano (et alia)
Ok. So no background check, no waiting period, no denial of purchase, able to use at 16, one license good nationwide, no limit on size, capacity, number you can buy. "A right" someone else can purchase for you no questions asked. One insurance policy can cover anyone using. Allowed on any public roadway, can freely purchase classics without mandated features or new with per personal preference easy to get a license, govt has to prove you shouldn't have one instead of purchaser having to prove they should. Free to allow it to be used by others, legal to modify in pretty much any desired fashion. No one actively trying to ban them, no one saying only the government should have them, no one saying you don't have them because we have professionals who do? Hopefully you get the point.
Yeah, I get the point. As usual Mike, you've got a particularly twisted way of seeing things. License and registration plus insurance for starters.
Only one problem with that. Its the Bill of Rights. The other problem that Mike has is that he doesn't like to compare guns with cars!
You do understand that it is a 'right' to bear arms and a 'privilege' to drive, don't you?orlin sellers
No proof of insurance or license required to purchase a car.No background checks.License for public use is good in all 50 states.No background checks or limits on private sales.No proof of insurance or license required for private use on private property.Are you suggesting gun control advocates want these "restrictions" for guns?
I'm really surprised that they want to see the penalties for carrying while intoxicated reduced to the levels of a DUI.
Hi Mike, I always love it when the anti gun crowd trot this out. And they do it quite regularly. Most of the time its because they are still ignoring Heller and hoping it will go away. because one is a right, and one isn't. But lets look and see how this works out without taking that little detail into account. First, you can buy a car for cash with no background check and no need to license or insure it if you keep it on your private property. You only need to do the licensing and insuring if you take it out on the road. Which makes it akin to a carry permit. So lets look at the carry permit being treated like a car license, First, unless you're under eighteen, you don't normally need any mandated training to get a drivers license. You pass the written and behind the wheel test and you get the license. And you generally don't ever need to take another test ever again. I'm not sure how they do it in other states, but in Minnesota, classroom and behind the wheel classes for those less than eighteen are available in pretty much every high school. Also, if carry permits were treated like drivers licenses, they would be shall issue in every state. You pass the test, pay your fee and you get it right there. There is no having to prove to some government flunky that you have a suitable need for the permit. And like the drivers license, it would be valid everywhere in the US. No more getting arrested if you wander into Jersey. Or even DC. And lets not forget the insurance requirement. First, liability insurance usually doesn't cover intentional acts such as assault or homicide. So the rates for liability insurance would be based on negligent or unintentional mishaps committed by permit holders. Since permit holders are much more law abiding and safety conscious than the general public, rates would likely be quite low. That last part really frustrates the gun control crowd because they usually want the rates to be so oppressive that it will keep people from owning or carrying a firearm. They also love to claim that insurance for permit holders is already available, so why not make it mandatory. Though they tend to change their tune when they discover that the insurance they speak of is to pay for the legal fees of permit holders if they have to defend themselves. That would be way cool.
And I love it when you trot this out: "if you keep it on your private property."Percentage-wise, how many cars does that cover?
Well Mike, not many, but this is a great example of sloppy thinking on the part of whoever makes this stuff up.
Percentage-wise, how many cars does that cover?Utterly irrelevant. This goofy meme refers to the regulation of ownership of guns and cars, not the practice of it. A 3-year-old murderer who is addicted to methamphetamine can legally own a dozen Lamborghinis--and you geniuses want guns regulated like cars?
MikeB: "Percentage-wise, how many cars does that cover?"It doesn't matter. The meme is saying "Let's treat guns like cars". But, no, actually... apparently they don't really want that.
What's irrelevant is the tiny percentage of cars that never leave private property and thereby are immune to the normal regulations. The obvious point that you guys are frantically trying to avoid with all this obfuscation is that guns need to be registered and gun owners need to be licensed.
What's irrelevant is the tiny percentage of cars that never leave private property and thereby are immune to the normal regulations.}Wrong. It wouldn't matter if these unlicensed, unregistered (but legal) cars constituted zero percent of the total number of cars. When you say you want guns regulated like cars, you're saying that you want mere ownership of guns totally unregulated. Almost shall not be infringed-ish, isn't it? Maybe they should have put a "Molon Labe!" on their cute little poster.
MikeB: "...guns need to be registered and gun owners need to be licensed."Do you mean like they are for cars, where even the worst, most irresponsible drivers have no problem getting a license?
No, TS. The worst and most irresponsible do not have licenses, or they don't have them for long.
Right! They easily get their license, then they do something stupid and reckless multiple times, and they lose their license. And yet we don't take it out on everyone else who hasn't done anything wrong. The individual proved they are irresponsible and were punished. And it seems the licensing system somehow wasn't able to screen them out before issuing a license.Again, "let's treat guns like cars!"
TS, You're all over the place on this one. The licensee is the only one who pays for his misdeeds. We don't "take it out on everyone else."Gun licenses to purchase would work the same way. For serious enough infractions you lose the license, some cases for a period of time in others permanently. In spite of your paranoid victimism, "everyone else" is not affected by this any more than other drivers are affected by the dangerous antics of one individual
You want to use a gun licensing system to screen out people from ever owning guns. We don't do that with cars. Everyone gets their license, and if an individual does something bad, they might lose it. Does the drivers licensing system try to find out if an applicant abuses alcohol, and then deny them a license? No, it doesn't. But you want that with guns.
What do you mean we don't do that with cars? Are you even thinking about what you write. We eliminate people for their eyesight, for their age, for their inability to pass the written test. All that and more is BEFORE they get the license to drive.
I specifically brought up screening out people for alcohol abuse as something that you want for guns that we do not do for cars- despite that mixing alcohol and cars leads to more death than the nation's murder total. You know this, that's why you dodged it and tried to shift the conversation to written tests and age restriction (which are even higher for guns). Mike, you want to weed out half prospective gun owners from ever being allowed to own a gun. You don't want a system where they fail a written test so they have to retake it before passing. Just about everyone who tries to get a driver's licenses ends up getting it. You don't want that with guns, so just stop already.
We've been through this, Mikeb, and you were "forced to agree with" our rebuttal of this idiocy.And about "the famous comparison"--isn't it you who gets all hoof-stomping pissy when anyone dares comparing guns and cars?
I don't think Iìve ever become "hoof-stomping pissy" about anything. I guess you just wanted to impress us with your glib word combinations.What I remember is you guys used to make the car comparison all the time untill the car deaths started to out.do the gun deaths in state after state. Then you stopped.Licensing and registration and insurance are the main points. We need them for guns and gun owners.
I don't think Iìve ever become "hoof-stomping pissy" about anything.Perceptions differ. Just calling' em like I see 'em.What I remember is you guys used to make the car comparison all the time untill the car deaths started to out.do the gun deaths in state after state.Um, car deaths have outnumbered gunshot deaths in the U.S. for as long as I can remember--and that's without figuring in deaths attributable to global warming, much of which is in turn linked to automotive use of fossil fuels.Licensing and registration and insurance are the main points. We need them for guns and gun owners.Tough. You ain't gettin' 'em.
And when everyone gets a license (like they do for cars), and insurance premiums are cheap and let people off the hook financially for negligence- you're not going to have a problem with that?
MikeB: "What I remember is you guys used to make the car comparison all the time untill the car deaths started to out.do the gun deaths in state after state. Then you stopped."We didn't stop making car comparisons. Why do you think we were cowering over some silly Bloomberg "study" a few years back which wrongly said "gun deaths" would surpass car deaths by 2015? That's some wishful thinking on your part.
"What I remember is you guys used to make the car comparison all the time untill the car deaths started to out.do the gun deaths in state after state. Then you stopped."I said that backwards, which you perfectly understood but pretended not to. Typical Kurt honesty.
I said that backwards, which you perfectly understood but pretended not to. Typical Kurt honesty.So because I responded to what you said, rather than to what you now, with shocking suddenness, claim to have meant, I'm being "dishonest"? Typical Mikeb "logic."But anyway, since I'm a reasonable, generous guy, let's accept that you had from the beginning meant that deaths by gunfire have started outnumbering automotive deaths, 'in state after state." Um . . . can you name a few of these states? Because I must have missed this development somehow.
Liar.I'll take that to mean you won't be providing that list of "state after state." From that, I fear I have no choice but to conclude that you cannot provide such a list, because the facts conflict with your assertion.Therefore, of course, I'm the "liar."
I dedicated an entire post to this, but somehow, although you comment on almost everything I post, you didn't get to this one,http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2015/09/in-georgia-and-28-other-states-gun.html
I dedicated an entire post to this, but somehow, although you comment on almost everything I post, you didn't get to this oneSorry--guess it didn't occur to me to look for the answer to my question in some location utterly unrelated to where I asked it. But thanks.And sorry to have left you feeling neglected.
You're a phony and a liar, Kurt - again.
You're a phony and a liar, Kurt - again.Nope - again.
Not quite a year and a half. Either Mike has a short memory or he believes everyone else does.
NO, I just like the post and when I saw it again I posted it again.
Sooooo,,,, Nothing new then?
NO, I just like the post and when I saw it again I posted it again.You "just like the post" that you were forced to acknowledge is "an admittedly clumsy comparison," when confronted with a few of the fatal flaws in its "logic"?
WOW, these gun loons use the car comparison when it suits their position, then denounce it when it doesn't. Typical hypocritical stance, which we see all the time from these dishonest gun loons.
Actually Anon, it seems to be the gun control loons who keep suggesting this stuff. And normally without thinking, as is evidenced by the holes in the argument highlighted here which would cause them to say, "no, wait..." if it ever came to pass.
Not on this blog, but nice try at dishonesty.
Well Anon, you just have to take a look at the signature on the post of this very blog and you'll see it has happened at least twice.
Another SS lie, prove it dishonest gun loon.
Well Anon, lets look at the Facebook page of the group that seems to have made this meme. Now does it look like a pro-NRA group? Or not? And if you look at some of the other comments here you'll see that this meme has been posted here twice. https://www.facebook.com/OneMillionMomsAndDadsAgainstGunViolence/timeline
So you want to have it both ways? No surprise from a hypocritical, lying gun loon like you, and that has been proven many times. Check the archives of this blog, the gun loons have used the car comparison. But nice try to change the issue by shifting it to some other group not related to the issue. Next lie SS........
"Check the archives of this blog, the gun loons have used the car comparison." Anon, as has been shown with the two times this particular meme has been posted here, its the gun control lobby that seems to like this argument. Gun rights advocates as a rule quite rightly point out that bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and being able to drive a car in public isn't. However, as you saw here, we are quite willing to repeatedly show the holes in this particular argument since it shows the thought processes, or rather the lack thereof of the gun control advocates that bring it up over and over. If you happen to know of a discussion here where a pro-gun advocate started a discussion by making the car comparison as opposed to responding to it as happened here I'd love to see the link you'd be able to supply.
I used the car comparison myself.
I'm talking about THIS blog and you want to talk Facebook, HA HA HA HA HA thanks for proving your dishonesty again SS.
This SS guy is really a dishonest dirt bag.