RT_Jerusalem_ml_141105_16x9_992

The antis love to point out that Americans have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a license to drive, whereas getting a gun is easy peasey. Void where prohibited by law, of course. Laws which the antis would like to see extended to the entire country. Anyway, the pro-gun side counters with a simple fact: keeping and bearing arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. Driving a car is not. Pro-gunners also highlight the fact that cars are more dangerous than guns. But terrorists and criminals and crazies use guns! Unless they don’t . . .

Setting aside the stark truth about terrorists – bombs are their preferred modus operandi – it’s also true that terrorists will use whatever method they can find to inflict maximum damage to innocent life. A quick trip to Wikipedia’s terrorist attacks listing proves the point. Google searching “knife massacre China” is another eye-opener. And then there’s this from today’s news [via abcnews.go.com] :

A Palestinian man rammed a minivan into a crowded train platform in east Jerusalem on Wednesday and then attacked people with an iron bar after leaving the vehicle, killing one person and injuring 13 in what authorities called a terror attack before he was shot dead by police . . .

Police said the motorist slammed his car — a white minivan — into the train platform in east Jerusalem first, backed out and proceeded to drive away, hitting several cars along the way. He then got out of the car and attacked a group of civilians and police officers on the side of the road with a metal bar before he was shot and killed. Security camera footage appeared to show him darting about a crowded intersection before he was shot. . .

The militant Hamas group took responsibility for the attack, the second such assault in east Jerusalem in the past two weeks. Neighboring Jordan called back the kingdom’s ambassador to Israel for consultations in a gesture of protest over the violence in east Jerusalem.

The antis deal with this inconvenient truth about terrorism – [bad] people kill people any way they can – by claiming “a gun would have made it worse” – even though in this case, indeed all cases, a gun makes it better. To that boneheaded anti-gun agitprop I have one word. Well, number. 9/11. I wonder what would have happened if a civilian had been armed with a gun on those flights . . .

Recommended For You

51 Responses to Ban Cars!

  1. Cars can be used on private property without a license or tags or anything, for whatever legal purpose you like.

    Car dealers face no significant federal oversight or regulation.

    Cars can be bought or sold by anyone, without a license, without a background check and with no state oversight, in any quantity or capability you can or care to afford.

    Nobody whinges that “You don’t NEED a 700 horsepower fire-breathing monster to go to the store for your groceries.”

    Cars come factory-equipped with silencers.

    Drivers licenses are recognized and honored in all 50 states and most foreign countries.

    • Yep.

      I wish guns were as half as unregulated as the antis perceive them to be…

      Couple that with the NRA being half as powerful as antis think they are and we’ll be in a business.

    • Private property, all true, but step out in public and the comparisons are no longer cute.

      First, you need a state license. Bye bye constitutional carry.

      Operation of a vehicle is subject to sobriety checkpoints. Say hello to nationwide stop-and-frisk.

      Not every state has a mandatory seatbelt law for adults. Of those that do, some are primary (you can be stopped and ticketed just for that), while some are secondary (can be ticketed only if stopped for something else legitimate). Here comes the po po on gat patrol, checking whether your rifle has a sling and if so, one point or two.

      Most states require auto liability insurance. Those that do, have varying coverage minimums. Hope your gun policy makes the grade! Hope you know those dets in advance of travelling.

      Autos are subject to numerous safety and environmental regulations. I’m sure Magpul and Wilson Combat will do wonders with an emissions control system for your AR.

      Let’s not forget feeding your firearm. Just like cars: unleaded fuel only!

      I’m just messing with you, you understand. Someone has to pick up the Devil’s Advocate slack in here since Matt in FL has gotten a lot more busy these days.

      • You are bringing up points which are knowingly unconstitutional, i.e. checkpoints. In them, scotus actually acknowledged their unconstitutionality, but claimed that the problem (dui) overrode the measure of constitutional violation, in other words, the problem merited negating the constitution.
        Travel is a right. Insurance cannot be demanded on personal use vehicles, insurance companies were part of the group pushing for licensing, in order to limit their liability.
        A lot of information is available, if you wish to seek it out.

  2. We should at least close the private car sales loophole. Nobody should be able to go online, find a local car for sale by owner, and give them cash for it then drive off. Where’s the background check? Where’s the verification of insurance, driver’s license, check of mental fitness to operate a vehicle, etc? All car sales should be done in front of a government agent who can verify these things and collect taxes. Close the private car sales loophole today!

    • I like to call it the “Yard Sale Loophole”, and it is the single biggest threat to our safety as Americans today.

    • Even worse, I can go in to craigslist or even a regular newspaper and buy a car from the private seller WITH NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER! THE HORROR!

    • Not as far fetched as you might think. The whole “cars kill more people than guns” argument is poo pooed by the antis now, but in a few years the driverless car will begin to become a real thing. And along with it, the hand-wringing over allowing humans to continue being in control of vehicles. “From my cold, dead hands” will soon be there cry of automobile enthusiasts in reference to their steering wheels. They, in turn, will have “because children” thrown back at them.

  3. I have made this argument hundreds of times with anti gun people. Their response is always the same. “Cars have a purpose other than killing people guns do not.” I then tell them that millions of rounds of ammunition are fired every day at ranges and no one ever dies. I then tell them that thousands of police officers in their community carried a firearm that day and no one was shot…they usually have no comeback for either. Then I ask them if cars were designed not to kill people how do they kill so many people?

    • “Then I ask them if cars were designed not to kill people how do they kill so many people?”

      I love this one. Always shuts them up.

    • It’s a problem with perception. Many of the things we use every day were originally created to be weapons, either to directly kill people or to improve our ability to kill people (e.g. microwave ovens coming from radar technology, which was created for war purposes). A tool, like a kitchen knife, may have origins as an offensive weapon, but its current purpose is defined solely by the owner. It’s the same with firearms. I have guns that were designed from the get-go for NO other purpose than target shooting and would not be well-suited to use against animals or humans in a defensive or offensive manner. “Guns are made for killing people” is patently false. Maybe that was the original idea when they were first invented centuries ago, but we have come a long way just like your kitchen knives, car, microwave, and other things have. You don’t get in your car and think, “this came from the chariot and then the first conceptions of mechanized transport were all war machines for killing people and therefore my car was made for the sole purpose of killing people” and it’s the same with firearms.

    • Some of my guns were only designed for target shooting, and some just for hunting. The rest were designed to keep ME from being killed.

    • the “guns are only designed to kill people” argument is specious. It is like saying we need to get rid of our army or navy.

      Guns in civilian hands in the US clearly function as a practical and proven DETERRENCE of violence at an order of magnitude higher rate than they are used to commit violence.

  4. I love it when people compare gun laws to car laws.
    – No minimum age to buy a car
    – No waiting period to buy a car
    – No limit on how many cars you can buy
    – No law against short-hooded cars
    – No law against mufflers
    – No limit on fuel capacity
    – No limit on horsepower
    – No limit on how much fuel you can buy
    – No registration required unless you intend to use the car on a public road

    What we do regulate is how we USE cars on public roads. Just like we have regulations on where, when, and under what circumstances you can USE a gun.

    Works for me.

    • Right to travel exists, it just is not common knowledge. Just like back in the days when teamsters and hack drivers used horse drawn vehicles, the only people actually required to be licensed to use the roads for travel are drivers engaged in commerce.

      • This. It was part of our civil rights that we could freely travel within as well as between states without need of a license or permit.

        The idea that many people accept that traveling on public roads we paid for with our taxes as a privilege and not a right is bizarre.

        What could more essential as a free people beyond freedom of speech and the right to KABA than the freedom to travel by the most current technologically advanced methods available?

        I

      • Yep. Travel wherever you want. Walk, ride a bike, ride a horse, or get a buggy like the Amish. Send me a postcard!

        If, however, you want to strap yourself into a two-ton machine with 150 horsepower and the ability to go 90 miles per hour, and you want to operate said vehicle amongst the general public, then your state of residence will require that you demonstrate your ability to do so safely. The states regard this as a privilege that can be revoked if you exercise it in an unsafe manner.

        I’m good with all that.

        • The laws clearly allow for you to take your 2-ton machine and travel freely with it. I don’t, but have met those that do so, and LEO’s familiar with the legality of it as well. You know how they say “ignorance of the law is no excuse”….here it is your ignorance. Even in Illinois….look it up before making rash decisions. It is a privilege to use that vehicle for commerce, not personal travel. Going to work is not commerce, it is personal travel, by the way.
          Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
          (“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

        • Go ahead and drive in Illinois without a license, Paul. Don’t bother with insurance, either.

          Godspeed.

        • People do it. It is legal. It can be a pain, because like you, the police don’t necessarily know the laws, and are not impressed when others try to inform them of the laws. For this reason, those driving unlicensed too often spend time in jail, until they get in front of the judge, who has to release them. These drivers are uninsured as well, no insurance company will insure an unlicensed driver, they were the initiators of coercing licenses upon people, along with banks loaning money for cars.
          I have met a few who do this, and a cop who had his jaw drop when his juicy arrest was released. You assume way too much, because you have been told the same lie for so long.
          “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
          –HERBERT SPENCER
          Remember, in another generation people will believe that permits to carry are not infringements. They won’t remember it any other way.

        • I’m good with all that.

          I’m sure that you are because you’re a statist and part of everything that’s wrong with our nation today. You don’t truly respect and defend rights. You worship the State and look to it for your protection instead of where you ought to look under our constitutional republic; yourself.

          I also have personally known people who understood the right to travel. Some were law enforcement. Some were paralegals. Some were simply well read individuals. With the exception of law enforcement officers, I’ve observed them traveling in automobiles without driver licenses, license plates, or insurance. They did so without issue.

        • Remember, in another generation people will believe that permits to carry are not infringements. They won’t remember it any other way.

          ^^^ This. ^^^

  5. First of all don’t cede the point that driving a car is not a right. Certainly a “right” to have a car given to you so you can drive is not a right, but freedom to travel is a fairly well understood “negative” (does not require anything from anyone except that they leave you be; compare to positive rights which are the opposite) right in terms of a natural rights sense. The founders understood that just because they enumerated certain rights in the constitution didn’t mean others didn’t exist. All negative rights of course.

    Here’s how the argument usually goes for me, I excluded some other points for brevity sake:

    Statist: you have to get a license to drive a car, why shouldn’t you have to get one for a gun?

    Me: why should I have to get a license to drive a car?

    Statist: because you drive on the government roads so you have to follow their processes.

    Me: you mean the roads that the government built by pushing out private sector competition, and has therefore granted themselves a monopoly over? I thought you hated monopolies by the way?

    Statist: if the government didn’t build the roads then no one would do it and no one would be able to get anywhere.

    Me: so you are saying all of those shops and businesses who have an interest in getting customers to their stores etc. would make no effort to find ways to do so? Like building roads with all the tax money they saved?

    Then it just dissolves into a rant on how bad business is. Remember guys, for a statist it always comes back to “but who will build the roads?”

    • I love it when lefties use the Eisenhower interstate road system as a model of government infrastructure project done right, but are clueless when I tell them the main reason for it was to allow the military to quickly move or respond from one area of the country to another. The fact we civilian drivers benefit from that is actually a second tiered reason.

  6. [q]Anyway, the pro-gun side counters with a simple fact: keeping and bearing arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. Driving a car is not. [/q]

    The Bill of Rights was not meant to be all-encompassing. The 9th and 10th amendments protect the following:
    The right to free travel via common mode of transportation of the day
    The right to privacy.

    Those founders were smart folks. If we don’t need licenses to carry, we don’t need licenses to drive.

  7. We’ve been playing the WRONG game all along guys, with the car analogy. Wrong game.

    You think it’s easier to buy a gun than to buy a car? Depending on the state, you can go on craigslist, arrange a sale, make sale and send in transfer of ownership via mail.

    Oh wait, you’re talking about DRIVING a car on public streets?

    Well we have to get a concealed weapons permit in most places, which is a bureaucratic process and in many states requires a written test, going to class, demonstrating your drivin- I mean shooting skills, and wait for the bureaucracy to send you a permit.

    We need to push back on this narrative that guns are less regulated than cars. Damn it, they’re similarly regulated, in that you can BUY them, but to actually USE them, you have to jump through hoops.

    Yes, there are some open carry without license, and constitutional states- proper response is that AZ also has valid driver’s licenses for like 30 years til expiration so that you have seniors who couldn’t pass the test driving decades after they would have had to give up.

    Push back on this false narrative. Guns are NOT easier to ride around with than cars in all but a few states, which also tend to be lax on car laws.

  8. funny how the Constitution provides rights for both without licensure(privilege), yet we have allowed so many rights to be downgraded to privileges.

  9. “Driving a car” may not be a “Constitutionally-protected right” but it certainly is a natural and civil right. What good is the right to property if you’re not “allowed” to use your property? On roads you paid for, by the way?

  10. I’d say the right to drive a car is as much a right to own a gun. Yes, we require licenses to drive a car on public grounds. But it’s a worthless requirement, because pretty much any moron can get a driver’s license. It is just a bureaucratic process the government makes you go through. If we really required people to actually have to show a real level of competency in terms of road knowledge and driving skill before being granted a license, a huge chunk of people would be barred from driving, and then society wouldn’t be able to function right.

    So the licensure process is dumbed-down heavily. It’s just a way for government to keep further tabs on people. In terms of making sure that the people driving on the road are skilled at all, it is completely worthless.

  11. My first contact with Government licensing was for a motorcycle. The cop was going to get a bike and follow me around, but noticed that it was raining. He stood under a balcony and watched me go 100 yards up one street, turn around (awkwardly), then do the same up another street he could see from his vantage point. That was enough for my license. I don’t remember the test for my car license, but I think it involved a hill start, and parallel parking, with a short motorway stretch. Parking was never my strong suit. But at least they got to see me operating the equipment I was licensed to use.

    By contrast, during all the long drawn out process to obtain a firearms license, not once did I fire a weapon in front of a Police officer. By that time I was a member of a small bore rifle club, and I think that helped. But I’m probably a better shot than I am a driver. All thanks to the club. And I still have a motorcycle. Never give that up.

  12. Your statement about driving a car is incorrect. You must not know the true definition of Liberty that was written for the constitution and excepted by congress and on behalf of the states. It is also backed up by the supreme court.

  13. I`ve been seeing the comment about how driving cars is not a right statement a lot lately. Granted, often in reference to or along with other topics. That idea needs to be thought out. It`s starting to bug me. It can easily be argued a freedom issue also. The government did not create cars or roads. Government may have improved and made the roads more accessible, but thats about it. Driver licences are not so very far back in the past as to the first time they were issued. You as a person purchase said vehicle,who should have the right to dictate how and when that is used ? (( The context being that you and your property do not damage another`s property or person.

Leave a Reply

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