Debunking the “Guns should be Treated like Cars” Analogy

Bond-mobile (courtesy iconicamericanclassiccars.blogspot.com)

There’s a popular analogy going around that tries to link guns and cars. “You need a license to drive a car!” gun control advocates scream, “and it needs to be registered! Why not do the same thing with dangerous guns? It’s only common sense!” It’s a line so popular that even a wolf in sheep’s clothing at Guns & Ammo fell for it. But if you actually take a second and dissect that argument, it completely falls apart of its own weight. Guns are, in fact, already far more heavily regulated that cars. In fact, treating guns like cars would require a reduction in regulation, not an increase. So, let’s take a peek at the truth behind these claims . . .

Registration

“All cars need to be registered, we should do the same thing with guns!” That’s the statement parroted by gun grabbers, including certain members of my family. And yet…

Let’s look at racing cars, for example. I’m sure that we can all agree that race cars are, in fact, cars. But while they have four wheels, an engine and some seats, they aren’t registered. They aren’t “street legal,” meaning that if you even tried to take them out on the road you’d be pulled over and ticketed. For this reason, they’re run only on either on private property or dedicated race tracks, neither of which require a registration tag for the car or license plates.

It isn’t only race cars that don’t have to be registered. On farms and ranches all across America you’ll find vehicles that were either never registered or whose registration has long since expired. And they never leave the property. There was a 1968 GMC Jimmy back at the Boy Scout camp I worked at a few summers during high school that was purchased specifically for the camp and never even had a single set of license plates. All of these cars exist and are owned completely 100% legally without registration.

For firearms, the vast and overwhelming majority live the same life. They exist only in the homes of their owners, on a firing range, or in other words on “private property.” Therefore the analogy of car registration is misleading and false, since while car registration only applies to those cars using the public roads the gun control advocates want universal registration of every firearm in the United States. No matter where they are. If the same thing were attempted with cars, the outcry would be deafening.

However, unlike cars, some firearms that politicians believe are “incredibly dangerous” are indeed registered whether or not they’re carried in public. Machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and other NFA items are required to be registered solely because they exist. And while if the registration lapses on your vehicle you can re-register it at no penalty, if you lose the registration papers for your silencer, a felony charge is in your future. Sports cars don’t require registration, but machine guns do. And yet, the last time a legal machine gun was used anywherein a murder was 1994 — by a cop. Go figure.

Driver’s Licenses

“You need a driver’s license to buy or drive a car! You should need the same thing for firearms!” Again, another justification for the FOID cards in Illinois or the pistol permits in New York. But, again, it’s a false analogy.

Just as cars that never leave private property don’t need to be registered, people who drive cars on private property don’t need a driver’s license. They’re only needed for those venturing out onto the public streets, and anyone – of any age – can operate a motor vehicle on private land. In the same way, the vast majority of guns are only used while on private property and transported from home to the range unloaded (i.e., not in use). So while it might seem to make a glimmer of sense at first glance, the reality is that requiring a firearm owner’s card for simply owning a firearm isn’t remotely the same thing as requiring a driver’s license for driving a car on the road.

In reality, there already is an equivalent to the driver’s license. Each state sets their own qualifications for who needs a driver’s license and what types of vehicles need what kind of license. In the same way those who carry guns on their person in public are already licensed in the same fashion. Here in Texas, carrying a handgun on your own property is perfectly legal without a license, but the moment you venture out into public you need to have taken a class and passed a test to carry that same gun. It’s the same thing as requiring a driver’s license for people driving in public. And just as with the driver’s license, each state sets their own requirements for who qualifies for a license and what kind of activity is legal. Some states allow right turns on red and some states allow the open carry of long guns without a license.

Actually, come to think of it, I’d like it if this aspect of guns were treated as if it were cars we were talking about. I can use my driver’s license in any state in the union, and the “full faith & credit” clause of the Constitution means that it’s valid. I don’t need to double check if my Texas driver’s license is valid in New York, and I don’t need an out-of-state driver’s license to drive a car in Massachusetts. But for concealed carry licenses, that’s exactly the case. If concealed carry licenses were treated like driver’s licenses things would make a whole lot more sense to me.

Speaking of people without a driver’s license, while some dealers will require it, you do not need a driver’s license to buy a car. Any dealer is able to sell a car to someone without a driver’s license, but it becomes illegal the second you drive it off the lot and onto the public street. In the same way, private party car sales are indeed a thing that people do, and don’t go through a dealer and don’t require registration.

The Cold Hard Legal and Mathematical Truth

The car analogy only works for people who don’t understand the reality of gun laws or vehicle laws in the United States. If all you know about guns is what Rachel Maddow tells you, then sure it makes perfect sense. But in reality, the car analogy (used to advocate for stricter gun control, at least) is illogical and irrelevant. And to cap it all off, this last statement is all that you really should need to know the difference:

There is no statement in the Bill of Rights that gives you the right to drive a car, but there is one for keeping and bearing arms.

The words “shall not be infringed” are pretty clear to me, and while I may be the most liberal guy on TTAG’s staff even I only bend so far as to be OK with a quick and paper trail free verification of someone’s identity and non-felon status before a firearms sale. Anything more, in my opinion, is an infringement on those rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Even then, it would still be easier to buy and own a car than to own a gun.

Cars kill more people than guns every single year (excluding suicides), and yet guns are more heavily regulated. Does that sound like “common sense” to you?

Want a bullet point list? Here it is:

  • Car dealers don’t need to be licensed by the federal government. Gun dealers do.
  • Car dealers don’t need to keep meticulous records of all transactions under penalty of law. Gun dealers do.
  • Cars don’t require registration to own or licensing to operate. Neither do guns.
  • Cars can legally be sold across state lines. Selling a gun across state lines is a felony.
  • Driver’s licenses are valid in all states. Concealed carry licenses aren’t.
  • I don’t need to tell the ATF when I take my short wheel-base car to another state. I do need to tell them when I take my SBR hunting rifle.
  • Cars aren’t banned just because they look scary. “Assault weapons” are.
  • I get a tax credit when I buy certain cars. I don’t get a tax credit for my new hunting rifle.

Come to think of it, we should be using the car analogy ourselves. I want firearms to be regulated just like cars. It’s only common sense!

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

71 Responses to Debunking the “Guns should be Treated like Cars” Analogy

  1. avatarGeneral Zod says:

    You left one out, Nick – there’s no background check required to purchase a car from a dealer. And let’s not even get into the number of deaths involving cars vs the much smaller number involving firearms…

    • avatarpyratemime says:

      I think it is also worth pointing out that drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter, and speeding not to mention any multitude of crimes that have nothing to do with vehicles will not prevent you from purchasing a car and generally you can still operate a car. However, there are a whole host of non-firearms related crimes that will create a life time ban from ownership or even touching a firearm.

    • avatarPimpNinja says:

      Not only that; I’m reasonably confident that felons can buy cars -and- be licensed to drive.

      Hrmm…

  2. avatarBillC says:

    Well played, sir. Also guns are protected under the Bill o Rights, while transportation is not.

    • avatarChip says:

      Yes.

      And no.

      You have a right to Travel in and among these various states. The transportation part is protected, the method of the transportation is not.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      If we had POTG lawyers half as good as the Liberal/Progressives do we could FIND a right to transportation in the Constitution. Personally, I think we should try. Could you continue to live your life in freedom and liberty if the government decided to revoke your “privilege” to drive for some unproven global warming reason? Since we all seem to acquiesce to the idea that driving is a privilege granted by the almighty state, what would we do if the state decided to tax that privilege or make the skill test requirements so onerous that most people simply couldn’t do it any more?

      It is NEVER a good thing to give away any personal necessity to the arbitrary authority of anonymous government. Before there were cars, did the government register your horses or require a license to drive a buggy into town? Where the hell does this idea of free movement and transportation being a government bestowed privilege come from? The Constitution of the United States of America gives the federal government the enumerated power to establish “Post Roads.” It does not give them the authority to require a license or regulate who may use those roads.

    • avatarBlue says:

      Actually, that isn’t true because of the 9th Amendment. I am fairly certain George Washington and Andrew Jackson would have pounded you into the ground if you told them that riding their horses to town was a privilege and not a right.

  3. avatarcubby123 says:

    Hello,RIGHTS vs PRIVLEDGES,I know it’s a hard concept for LIBATARDS to grasp,that’s why they are libatards!

  4. avatarJW says:

    Tax credits for USA made guns… Great idea, Nick!

  5. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    Very nice article. One potential trap here: The anti’s could say “OK, you don’t need to register it if you keep it at home, but you do if you want to carry it.” Minor point, since they want the ones you only keep at home registered, too.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      “…the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Don’t see anything there about requiring permission from the government to exercise your rights.

    • avatardwb says:

      in maryland carry is de facto banned**. considering this would be a vast improvement, id be ok with this.

      **except for the criminals, who seem to have no problem getting a permit. They are permitted, right?

  6. avatarFred says:

    “Cars require licenses and registration!”
    Ok, so what you’re telling me is that only people that are safe and courteous drivers are on the road? Are you saying it’s safer to drive than it is to own a gun? The stats don’t agree with that.

    It’s the same flawed logic as the “professionals” argument.
    “Only police should have guns”.
    Then why are you spamming your Facebook page and other media with “Police abuse” videos? When is the last time you saw a cop pull someone over that sped past you or cut you off? Absolute denial .

  7. avatarBDub says:

    “Cars kill more people than guns every single year (excluding suicides),”

    Cars kill more people than guns every single year, INCLUDING suicides.

    “Come to think of it, we should be using the car analogy ourselves. I want firearms to be regulated just like cars. It’s only common sense!”

    All this would accomplish is more hassle when buying and operating a car.

    • avatarBDub says:

      Something else you should cover:

      The penalties for killing someone through negligence with a car vs. with a gun. I am fairly sure that when you get out of prison (if you even go) for the lesser charge that killing with a vehicle will net you, you will have no problems getting a new Driver’s License and another car.

  8. avatarDave says:

    Bravo. Well done!

  9. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    FLAME DELETED

    Oh. Well done! Can you send it to GUNS AND AMMO for publication, please? I hear they need a new staff editorialist!

  10. avatarToasty says:

    I have always though there should be a tax writeoff for buying a gun safe or safety lock. The same goes for taking safety classes for your firearm. If the anti’s actually cared about “gun safety” they’d be doing everything in their power to train and educate people on responsible firearms ownership, but that’s not their agenda. Their agenda is to destroy the gun culture by vilifying firearms and their owners and eventually one day outright repeal the 2A. Maybe more, but certainly nothing less.

    • avatarGeneral Zod says:

      I disagree with tax writeoffs and credits as you suggest for one reason – the IRS has no business knowing if I’ve purchased ANYTHING firearms-related.

  11. avatarBDub says:

    This is actually one of my favorite analogies to debunk – I absolutely love it when an anti brings it up.

    One of the first question I ask is, “what if the gov’t told you couldn’t have a car that can go faster than the posted speed limit”?…”or install any accessories it deemed only suitable for the race-track?”

    You can go on forever.

    What if a widely used class of auto, say a sports-car, was banned for its resemblance to a non-street-legal race car? …or if it had one or more features in common with a race car…like a spoiler?

    What if the gov’t said any car over 200HP had to be registered with the Federal government, and no cars above that limit, that were made after 1986, could ever be purchased?

    Buying a car as a gift for someone may put you in prison – forever banning you from driving or owning another car.

    What if you had to have approval from local law enforcement, pay a tax and wait six months after purchasing a car part, before you could add it to your car?

    What if you had sold a car to an out of state customer, but had to ship it to a federally licensed car dealer and have the customer go pay an additional fee to that dealer in order to get their car?

    etc..

    • avatarBonah says:

      I too love to use the car analogy like you do. You put all the equalivalent gun restriction to cars, and throw the same but better logic in their face.

      Example; A ban on all assault cars. Black cars with body modifications and high capacity engines are killing our children. They do not belong on civilized streets…

      You can relate every “evil” thing about a gun to a car.

  12. avatarstateisevil says:

    You need a license to USE a car on a public road. Similarly, the USE of firearms in public should be regulated by the law. Carrying a firearm is harmless, in and of itself. It also is a basic right.

    • avatarMichaelB says:

      And how many multi-DUI offenders are on the road everyday, despite the legal requirement for a license to operate a motor vehicle on the public roadway?

      There are laws in place regarding gun use in public.

    • avatarmark_anthony_78 says:

      Exactly, I can trailer a non street legal, non registered car anywhere I want.

  13. avatardwb says:

    cars nor firearms kill no one. without a human they are inoperable.

  14. avatarCyrano says:

    Car insurance is not mandatory either, despite what the Supreme court was presented for Obamacare. Each state can determine what is required to traverse public highways. In my state, if you want to go through the trouble, you can post a bond instead of insurance and you will be perfectly legal. You don’t need insurance for antique cars and cars that never leave the property.

    More crimes are committed by licensed drivers than licensed firearms carriers.

    You can build your car from parts ordered over the mail without government intervention. You can even mill from block steel any part you wish without taxes or Fed intervention. Not quite so for guns. I have a gun smith book which half of the projects in it are illegal to do without Fed oversight yet I used to build offroad vehicles from various bits, welder, and drill press mill kit.

    I can develop the next greatest car/engine in my garage and then sell it to the highest bidder. Try that with a gun and you will be doing the hokey pokey behind bars.

  15. avatarCyrano says:

    I don’t need a license to carry a car around in a trailer, yet I do need one to carry a gun in a holster.

    I can develop the next greatest thing in cars in my garage and sell it to anyone of my choosing. Not so with a gun. Especially a faster driving gun.

    Antique cars and cars that don’t leave the property don’t require insurance. States establish whether insurance is required. In my state you can post a bond in lieu of insurance.

    Licensed Car drivers are more crime inclined than licensed carry people.

    I could mill an engine block without a license and sell it, try that with an action.

    I can add as many mufflers to my car as I please, I add one to my rifle and I am in deep doodoo.

  16. avatarBraenen says:

    You left out the fact that schools teach driver’s education and, in some schools, it is a mandatory class. I would love to see a mandatory marksmanship training class in high schools.

  17. You are missing the #1 difference:

    NO ONE WENT TO JAIL to make cars safer. “Regulation” is NOT criminal law !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Repeat: REGULATION IS *NOT* CRIMINAL LAW! Nor are hunting rules.

    If the anti-gun crowd wanted to ban the manufacture, import and sale of Firearm X — that is not a personal threat to me — where I could land in jail for owning Firearm X.

    The debate needs to be re-framed to show that “gun control” is about mass criminalization. Recent laws in CA required people to give-up or destroy 10+ mags. Are mags labeled? How would a gunsmith or a collector have any idea which of his mags made him an unwitting FELON?

    • avatarSteve says:

      Minor point, but more accurately “recent PROPOSED law in CA WOULD HAVE required people to give-up or destroy 10+ mags”, but did not pass. No need to spread FUD around.

  18. avatarTStanton says:

    Not to throw a fly in the ointment – but in CA you have to register every car, EVERY CAR. If you don’t drive it – you’re supposed to register it as “non-operational.”

    Obviously – the cops aren’t checking your non-op permit if you’re driving on your ranch… so the private property rule works in practice if not completely.

  19. avatarShandower says:

    There’s lots of ways guns could be treated like cars..

    Shooter’s ed classes in high school.
    Concealed carry learner’s permit expected at 16.
    Concealed carry license expected at 18.
    Kids without guns tsk’d at for having to use public gun rentals at the range.

  20. avatarMichaelB says:

    Others to chalk up why the car analogy doesn’t work:
    When there’s an “accident” the drivers usually continue. Their cars are not held captive by the police until the investigation is completed; or when they get around to it.
    Committing crimes while using a car does not preclude offender from using a car again.
    Mental issues do not preclude someone from driving a car.
    The process to purchase a car is much longer than a gun (depending upon state laws).
    There’s no waiting period to take possession of your car.
    People who have their cars stolen and then that car is involved in a crime, the owner is looked upon with pity and consoled. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner is reviled publicly, shamed, and accused or implied as an accomplice.

    The list goes on and on…

    On a related note, I rebuked some MDA crony who used the “we license and register cars” argument. I replied that the “#RKBA is constitutional. Cars are not.” Obviously, she came back with “So cars are unconstitutional?” It’s just amazing how f**king stupid these people are.

    • avatarBDub says:

      Wow! Do these people not understand the difference between “not Constitutional” and “Unconstitutional”? We have our work cut out for us, don’t we?

  21. avatarKevinMA says:

    One more Nick, you can trailer your unregistered race car on public roads, it neither needs to be registered nor insured. Even if said race car is fueled up and otherwise perfectly capable of running right now, so long as it is not operating under it’s own power it’s fine. Most race cars don’t have any form of locks or typically are started by press of a button. Same for the Glock I’m carrying. It is loaded and ready to go, but it isn’t in operation (I’m not shooting it).

  22. avatarNeil Schmidt says:

    “The words “shall not be infringed” are pretty clear to me, and while I may be the most liberal guy on TTAG’s staff even I only bend so far as to be OK with a quick and paper trail free verification of someone’s identity and non-felon status before a firearms sale. Anything more, in my opinion, is an infringement on those rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Even then, it would still be easier to buy and own a car than to own a gun.”

    Nick, I completely agree, but I also feel that Metcalf’s statement that summarized his feelings on the 2nd Amendment where he says, “I believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms, but I do NOT believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.” He goes on to say that he believes in adequate training and “preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms.” This was the gist of his article. It certainly wasn’t to crush the 2nd Amendment.

    I received flak in this very thread for going along with Metcalf regarding the intent of his article which I interpreted it to be one not of infringement, but of responsibility. And as I mentioned, there are far too many Brady Bunchers who regard us as a bunch of redneck yahoos who would rather shoot than accept a minimal training requirement that would not only protect us and our loved ones from harm, but would restore our once-admired reputation of being responsible gun owners. Don’t laugh: I am old enough to remember when.

    There are far too many dumb bell gun owners in society who make those of us who ARE responsible look stupid when we allow our kids to take our guns and accidentally shoot some other kid, or when we adults inadvertently blow away someone, such as the Japanese tourist who knocked on a Florida gun owner’s door merely to ask directions. Had kids involved in accidental shootings and the Yahoo home owner received training in the proper use of guns, those accidents might not have occurred. Sadly, they did occur, and the liberal press continue to make a circus out of similar episodes…..which would be reduced or possibly eliminated IMO if owners received some minimal amount of training.

    Some feel that it is an “infringement” on our rights as gun owners to be completely rigid and unbending re our so-called “right” to disregard and ignore the fact that such instances of irresponsibility are merely more nails in the coffin that the anti-gunners are trying to construct on a daily basis. Fine. For those of you who are so dogmatic in that belief: prepare to suffer the consequences.

    Do I believe that it is the federal government’s job to force training on every gun owner? No. If any such training should become law, it should be under the jurisdiction of each state, not the feds. One thing is for sure, we had better learn to compromise, even if just a little—and perhaps training for certain people in certain states is a small price to pay for getting the Brady Bunchers off our backs. I believe Metcalf was right in this regard, and I stand beside what I said.

    • avatarknightofbob says:

      I believe people have the responsibility to try to not hurt or hinder other people. I agree with you that laws that prevent people from doing so aren’t the end of the world.

      I disagree with your larger point, though. I was shooting 12 gauge and .357 more efficiently at ten than I could now. I’m a little hesitant to give my 23-year-old brother any gun, let alone one that fights back. Minimum age is not a factor.

      And it’s not up to ANY government, state or federal, to decide whether or not I can shoot. That’s what “Shall not be infringed” means.

    • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

      I don’t negotiate with terrorists and thieves. The Brady Horde have nothing to offer in return. They have nothing that we don’t already possess. They can only take and we ought not roll over.

      (I’m going to paraphrase this next bit from memory, shorten it, and modernize it some.) An old man who just won a huge lottery offered a beautiful young woman 50 million dollars to sleep with him. She thought about all that she could do with the money and that it would only take one relatively brief moment of her time so she agreed. He then asked her if she would sleep with him for $10. She gasped and said, “What do you think I am; a whore?” To this the man responded, “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re merely negotiating price.” — I’m not whoring out my natural right to keep and bear arms to the Brady Bunch or anyone else. Last I checked, they didn’t conquer the United States of America. The Second Amendment implies a deterrent and a solution. Neither are based in compromise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Indeed, “shall not be infringed” is a most crucial message. Without it, the militia would be at the whim of the federal government… pretty much the position that the militia finds itself in today! Compromise got us here and compromise will only lead us farther away from the intent and protection of the 2A.

      “For those of you who are so dogmatic in that belief: prepare to suffer the consequences.”

      Okay. I’m willing to endure the risk of even more infringement rather than turn tail from my duty to stand up for that which is necessary for our free Nation. How many of us have taken that oath at least once; some of us multiple times?

      Remember, those who sell out will suffer worse and far more lasting consequences at the hands of their own government. Not only that, they will be complicit in the destruction of our free State. As Shakespeare put it, “”Cowards die many times before their deaths, The valiant never taste of death but once.”

  23. avatarknightofbob says:

    “Cars aren’t banned just because they look scary.”

    They’re trying, though. Even though the “humble” Prius is one of the most dangerous vehicles I’ve ever seen on the road, registration and insurance on, say, an F-250 are insane, where you’re almost making money on a hybrid.

    I think this should be some common ground between car guys and gun guys (in the rare instances those aren’t already overlapping interests.) Registration and insurance on my BMW is insanely cheap compared to my old Monte (Lumina) Carlo; same year, same safety features, roughly the same gas mileage, though a lot more powerful. However, four doors instead of two, black instead of silver. (If your agent ever tells you that insurance companies don’t consider your car’s paint, get a new agent.)

    If I got into an accident, my 700iL would cause far more damage than the old Lumina Carlo. Similarly, in the right (or wrong) hands, a .45-70 lever gun would be far more devastating than anything in .223. Yet the less dangerous car was more expensive to own, and the AR is harder to get in most states.

  24. avatarFrankM says:

    Let’s treat guns like cars and have high schools offer a firearms education class like they often offer driver’s education courses.

  25. avatarZach says:

    Welll lets think like liberals on this one. Liberals believe that the gun causes the problem, and we already know that car accidents kill more than gun related suicides, accidents, and homicides yearly. So therefore, cars kill more people than guns. Therefore they should have licences and registrations.

  26. avatarAidan says:

    The right to travel is an “unenumerated right”. Don’t forget about the Ninth Amendment folks! Don’t fall prey to the idea that your rights are GIVEN to you by the constitution! They are your natural born rights and they ARE NOT all listed! I cannot emphasize this enough. Keep that in mind the next time those friendly guys and gals at the TSA say it’s time for a prostate exam…

  27. avatarPatrick says:

    * Not having a driver’s license doesn’t stop people from driving on streets.

    * Cars, because of size, price, and conspicuousness, can be somewhat regulated, unlike guns.

    * Cars require attention, skill, and can easily kill someone if the driver is not paying attention; guns, if handled with basic safety in mind, are easy to avoid killing someone. (safe direction, finger off trigger)

    * Car confiscation is not used by murderous politicians to disarm their victims.

    * (IMHO) Car registration is also immoral.

  28. avatarBlue says:

    If you have cash, you can buy a car without a background check. You don’t even have to have a DL to own a car and insure it. I know a blind guy that owns a Hummer and pays someone to drive him around in it including taking him to the gun range.

  29. avatarDrVino says:

    That Boy Scout camp with the 1968 GMC Jimmy is most DEFINITELY NOT in California…..

    I may not get a tax credit for my new hunting rifle, but I DO pay a tax that subsidizes wildlife conservation each time I buy a gun or ammunition…..

  30. avatarArod529 says:

    Nice breakdown, I like it.

    Lets face it. Were not going to get every thing back, all at once. I’ll take just about anything I can get, but that doesn’t mean we stop fighting for it all.

  31. avatarTom says:

    A correction. Auto dealers can and do get into a great deal of trouble if their records are not accurate. Here they are required to maintain a bound book that is honestly not much different than what a FFL must keep. Fail to do so and get fined, lose your business license, or face jail/prison time for fraud and such.

    Beyond that I find myself agreeing with you. I am fine registering and obtaining a permit for my carry weapon. I do not have a desire to register firearms that will never venture into the public sphear in an operable fashion. I want my carry permit to be valid nationally. I want these freedoms but fully understand that if I were to do something stupid with my weapons I am to be held responsible. Personal responsibility and being held accountable for our actions are important for society. However in many ways we are being treated as though we have already committed a crime based simply on the idea that it is possible.

    I guess that is enough for me right now.

  32. avatarRokurota says:

    How about this one? If guns are the same as cars, the next time some maniac plows his car through a shopping mall, Feinstein needs to shout long and hard for Mr. & Mrs. America to turn em all in. See how that plays with soccer mom.

  33. avatarAl says:

    Well, if cars were treated like guns… A vehicle that is too short would be considered a short-wheelbased car. Adding an extra knob to your steering wheel would make it a restricted any other vehicle. Be careful how you modify your car, you could end up with a “vehicle made from a sedan”. A folding or collapsible roof would be a “military feature”. In California, the Jeep would be banned specifically by name; you’d have to buy an off list chassis. In New York, you can have up to a ten gallon gas tank, but you’re only allowed to put seven gallons in it. And those fancy Italian imports? The V8 can be imported, but the V6 can’t because it doesn’t have enough “points”.

    • avatarSlicer87 says:

      Being a gearhead, there are alot of restrictions for cars and how you can modify them. You can’t install a motor that is older than the car, you can’t tamper or disable any of the low emission systems. Even tuning the car’s ECM is considered tampering. If you install a much newer engine into a car such as a 2002 LS2 into a 1952 Bel air, then the car will be held to 2002 emission standards and must have all the LS2′s emission and OBD2 gear installed. Exhaust pipes must exit behind the rear axle, not in front of it. Any performance parts must have EPA or CARB EO number saying it’s ok. The exhaust can not be too loud, etc.

  34. avatarCarlosT says:

    One more thing: if guns were like cars, then state and federal tax revenue would be spent in the billions to build and maintain a public infrastructure of shooting ranges spanning all 57 states. Representatives and Senators would fight to bring increased appropriations to their state for expansion of this system, and occasionally this “pork” would result in gigantic ranges built on isolated Alaskan islands with fewer than 50 residents.

  35. avatargetfreight says:

    While some of the points I like, guns should not be regulated like cars. Cars and driving are not rights. Devaluing the right to self defense, food and survival and the tools to accomplish these tasks through comparison to what has been established as a privilege, is not the best way to prove a point. It digs a deeper hole to work our way out of in the debate.

    • avatarBlue says:

      I see you have bought into the Highway patrol mantra. However, the 9th Amendment says otherwise. Being mobile is in fact essential for survival whether it is by horse and buggy, foot, auto or you hire it done. I would love to see you tell George Washington or Andy Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt that driving or riding was a privilege given to them by the commandant of the Highway Patrol.

      • avatarPatrick says:

        I think his point was that if either owning cars or owning guns is a basic right, it would be owning guns.

        In my opinion, guns are more vital to a secure and stable life than cars. Alternative forms of travel seem comparatively more viable than alternative forms of hunting, defense, etc. Maybe not, but he was making a point more about the necessary right of gun ownership than the right or lack of right to car ownership.

  36. avatarDave says:

    “I want firearms to be regulated just like cars.”

    Really Nick? I don’t think guns should be treated like cars, because any anti-gunner can turn every point against you. Ok, sure, you can do whatever you would like on private property. Want to bring your firearms into public? License, registration, and insurance please. Live in VA? How about an annual safety inspection too. What about different classes of license; like commercial or motorcycle? Want a .50 cal? You’ll need a different license.

  37. avatarR. Lewis says:

    “Guns are, in fact, already far more heavily regulated that cars.”

    Bullshit. The construction of a motor vehicle, and the operation of a motor vehicle on a road, are legislated down to the minutest degree.

  38. avatarMatt says:

    Not to mention licensing requirements, insurance requirements, and registration requirements don’t do a damned thing to keep people from driving illegally or because they have had the right suspended or revoked.

    So ya that will definitely translate to success if applied to firearms! /sarcasm

  39. avatarzeos says:

    that’s a great article with well thought out and stated ideas. I hope no hippies read it though, because all they will take away from it is we haven’t regulated vehicles enough.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.