David Eggert, Chairperson of God Before Guns (courtesy cleveland.com)

The chairperson of Gods Before Guns penned an editorial for cleveland.com entitled Guns, like cars, should include tough licensing and manufacturing requirements. “Many of the same kinds of regulations that are making steady progress in motor-vehicle safety could also be effective in reducing the toll of shootings,” Dave Eggert asserts. “And because guns, unlike vehicles, are specifically designed to kill, additional measures are also appropriate. These include universal background checks, special protections for children and youth, and special measures to keep guns away from criminals and domestic abusers.” Yup, this again. For those of you who just joined us . . .

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right, subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. The state sanctioned privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public roads is not.

This alone should be enough to torpedo any comparison between gun ownership and driving a car. If it isn’t, the right to keep and bear arms enables armed self-defense, defense of innocent life, community protection and a bulwark against government tyranny. While driving to work and taking little Janey to her soccer  game is pretty important too, there’s really no comparison, is there?

While the federal government issues safety requirements for thousands of ordinary consumer products (including vehicles), the firearms industry has successfully carved out a special exemption for itself. And under federal law, firearms manufacturers even enjoy special protection against liability lawsuits.

The response of the gun industry to gun violence is essentially this: “Buy your own guns so you can shoot back.”

“Gun violence” is not a thing. Guns do not commit violence. Criminals commit violence. Anti-gunners use the term “gun violence” to focus the public’s mind on guns, rather than the criminal using the gun. Bonus! It allows them to lump-in suicides with their “gun violence” statistics, inflating the otherwise statistically small – and falling – incidence of violent crime.

The gun industry is in the business of . . . wait for it . . . selling guns. So it’s true that their response to criminal predation is to encourage Americans to exercise their right to keep and bear arms by keeping and bearing arms. Just as the business of a website is to encourage Americans to exercise their right to free speech. The problem being?

The problem being Eggert’s intentional mischaracterization of gun ownership, somehow neglecting to mention that guns deter violence. Most defensive gun uses end without a shot fired. Many never happen because gun owners are armed.

The other problem is Eggert’s intentional failure to mention that gun rights advocates constantly argue for an end to the “revolving door” justice system that puts violent criminals back on the street. Or keeps them there. Essentially.

It’s time for the rest of us to insist that the freedom to own and carry guns must be weighed against the freedom of others to be safe from those who have no business owning or carrying lethal weapons. We have a right to require that gun owners and gun carriers are legally qualified, competent, and responsible, and that guns are as safe as possible in design and in their use, storage, and transport.

We know what works, and nothing in the Constitution or our rights as free citizens requires us to hold guns sacred from proven measures to reduce this major threat to public health.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as “the freedom to be safe.” Anyone who thinks that have a Constitutional right to be safe is a) ignorant and b) deeply, dangerously delusional. It’s the same sort of delusion that leads a man of the cloth (no less) to believe he has a right to violate other people’s rights in the name of safety. Or anything else, for that matter.

As for the statement “nothing in the Constitution or our rights as free citizens requires us to hold guns sacred from proven measures to reduce this major threat to public health” what part of “shall not be infringed” does Eggert not understand? Aside from all of it, obviously.

By the way, what’s wrong with God before guns?

[h/t GK]

Recommended For You

57 Responses to Websites, Like Guns, Should Include Tough Licensing and Registration Requirements. Or Not.

  1. This guy is an idiot. Otherwise he would know that to get a license requires a background check and an FBI fingerprint card and a few other things.

    • What makes you think this mouth with a microphone doesn’t already know perfectly well that law abiding citizens must, in near every single case, go through the background check process. He does not even give a whit whether his fantasy statements are true or not.

      Like all the other grabbers, even if Eggert-head is aware his statements are untrue doesn’t really matter; all the rhetoric, the outright lies he and the rest of the antis spew is simply background noise meant to move the cultural mores needle toward accepting full and complete disarmament of all law abiding American citizens who choose to Keep and Bear Arms.

      More sermons from another anti-gun cultist designed to brainwash his sheeple flock and the uninformed who happen to be listening.

  2. Google searches and records of every place you go on the internet need to be collected and scrutinized by law enforcement. Same with public library data requests.

    All websites / blogs get the same treatment. If we had done that, the Boston Bombers could have been questioned when they saw the Jihaddi publications they downloaded.

    Children’s lives would have been saved!

    Think of the children!

    If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

    (The standard disclaimer, yada yada yada…)

    • You joke, but the leftists would LOVE to do all those things. And if the new internet regulations serve as a foot in the door (as Hillary openly called them), then they will indeed work toward internet sites being regulated.

      • Not just the leftists – remember when the Patriot Act was passed? – but pretty much any government. Knowledge is, indeed, power.

      • “You joke, but the leftists would LOVE to do all those things.”

        Actually, they would consider that a horrible contradiction of their standard ‘Keep the Government out of my civil rights’ mantra.

        Their little fingers would be trembling as they clutch their pearls…

  3. It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to… Ah, never mind. That would be lost on this guy.

  4. Billy Johnson spoke about this a while back, if you talk about any other civil right like they do about the 2nd amendment, all hell brakes loose . How much freedom of religion do you need? Freedom of speech is fine but do you really need that 20,000 word assault thesaurus? Etc.

    • Right on! “You don’t need Christianity to go hunting!” “You ESPECIALLY do not need the New York Times for hunting!”

      • “People use the Internet to steal identities and wreck lives. Nobody has a ‘right’ to unlimited Internet access!”

      • Or “you don’t need newspapers for free speech, because free speech occurs on internet blogs and on talk radio. Newspapers, whose writers are crushed in the bear hug of the owners/investors, are not free to speak. They speak as they are told.

        Simple. Newspapers should not fall under the 1st amendments’ protection….because the speakers are not free.

  5. “The state sanctioned privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public roads is not.”

    The only people who call it a privilege are worshipers of the state. If the public owns it, then there should be no “privilege” to use it. PERIOD.

  6. Driving is a right. Government has just corrupted it to the point where few realize it or are willing to go through the motions to exercise that as a right.
    In that vein it is very similar to carry of a firearm, especially concealed.

    • Not in my copy of the Constitution. You have a right of interstate travel, meaning one state cannot restrict rights of passage of nonresidents, but the means by which you exercise that right are subject to regulation. If you don’t like it, then you can walk. It is, after all, the way the West was won.

      • The 9th Amendment doesn’t say anything about travel being restricted by regulation. It has been corrupted under the auspice of “public roads” and the tax and fee structure.

      • None of what you just stated is in the constitution either, especially the drivel about regulating travel via the common method of tbe day.
        Do a teeny bit of research next time before showing your ignorance. There are reams of data on the subject available online, with casez from many states and at the federal level.
        By tbe way, the constitution does make very clear that the rights enumerated therein are not the only natural rights of the people. Just in case you forgot that part.

        • thank you. While I agree wholeheartedly that “The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right, subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility” I also believe that I should be secure in my person and effects, and be free to assemble (including travelling to the the assembly).

    • @Paul-

      Wrong. Driving is INDEED a privilege, NOT a right. That point was made in my “Rules of the Road” book many decades ago, when I took indoor driver’s ed in high school. Driving a motor vehicle is not the same as exercising one’s right to speech, religion or peaceable assembly. It is no more a “right” than the right to become a neurosurgeon.

      The right to defend oneself’s life and limb and family was established long before civilizations and laws were promulgated.

      • That government pamphlet was written by bureaucrats and State Police commanders. However, the 9th Amendment says otherwise. The privilege is operating it on public highways. The privilege schtick started so states could collect fees and extort money on behalf of the insurance companies. The state also collects money from insurance sales. I doubt anyone would tell George Washington, Patrick Henry, or Andy Jackson that riding their horse to town was a privilege.

        Plus, with cash money you can buy a car on the spot without a background check. You can also get a license plate on it without a DL as long as you pay or have someone drive you around in it.

        • Operating a motor vehicle on public highways is not a privilege, it is a right, same as walking on a public sidewalk. Both are public infrastructure paid for with tax monies.
          The only time such use is a privilege is when you use these thoroughfares for commerce.

        • Reading this site on my phone can be problematic, sorry. Slow, freezes when scrolling, etc.

      • Yeah, we all got fed that line, bought into it, and voluntarily ceded our right to travel via the ccommon modes of the day, trading it for privilege. It has even been argued that such a right cannot be ceded under false pretenses such as we all were presented.
        You were fed lies, plain and simple. Your little pamphlet or driver’s ed book is not the law. Look into it. The law is quite clear. Just because a right is not in the Bill of Rights that does not mean the right does not exist. Ignorance of the law, ya know?

  7. All the improvements to cars…. they all apply to the car, not the driver.

    So why do all of their suggestions and comparisons of guns to cars apply to the firearm owner and not the firearm?

  8. I think the next leg of their effort is clear.

    “Safety” isn’t selling…or I should say their brand of what they think is “safety” isn’t selling, so now it’s licenses and registration with the car comparison.

    How many tactic changes has that been in the last 12 months? 6? 8? I’ve lost count.

    Also, I can’t help but wonder if the uptick in the car comparison is not a direct result of POTG always bringing up how ‘dangerous’ cars are in society compared to guns.

    This is at least the second issue I’ve seen them “respond” to how we talk to them. I noticed this with ‘safety,’ also. Our side brought up safety of the average gun owner in response to a lot of their disarmament nonsense, and boom…next thing we know we get a six month directed campaign pushing for ‘safety’ (again, their brand of it).

    I’m beginning to suspect they are responding to us and the gains we have made…playing catch-up ball, as it were.

    • Which is an argument they used to use all the time as well. (the ‘car comparison’). People like to say “We’re winning!” and “An AWB is even out of favor now with the antis”…

      … yeah, wait for it. They’ll keep rotating on these points until the public opinion matches up with their current angle of the day is, they’ll get lucky 7’s and win the jackpot. Third reel is another mass shooting.

      Sorry to be pessimistic, but there’s a reason that every time we hear this stuff its the same six phrases or so. There is, unfortunately, a method to their madness. This is why it frustrates me so damn much when people say “screw em, we’re winning”.

      • Your pessimistic caution is well founded.

        I fear there will never be a “winning” in this war against our nation’s Second Amendment protections, but rather our gun rights will continue to suffer insidious abridgement. In the meantime, the other Bill of Rights protections will to a lesser degree likewise suffer along the way.

  9. “The response of the gun industry to gun violence is essentially this: “Buy your own guns so you can shoot back.”

    Darned right – why should law-abiding citizens be forced to be helpless sheeple in the face of criminal wolves? THEY certainly will always be able to get guns. Heck, when Slick Willie was in the Oval Office, one of his “tea at the White House” buddies from China ended up smuggling a bunch of FULL AUTO AK-47’s into the USA. The shipment was discovered – but apparently some of the inventoried guns ended up missing, and last I had heard (it’s been a few years now) were still unaccounted for. Think those were intended for law-abiding Americans, who have been prohibited from owning full-autos made or imported after May of 1986? Guess again…

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-05-24/news/9605240246_1_nuclear-weapons-us-china-relationship-chinese-manufactured

    • Maybe those “missing” AK’s are sitting in the basement next to Hillary’s wiped server, being guarded by none other than the not so Secret Service.

  10. I don’t understand the argument about “safety” regulation of firearms. Firearms manufacturers are not exempt from liability for defectively manufactured or designed firearms–to wit, Remington and its triggers. The only exemption from liability is for harms caused by the misuse, criminally or negligently, of their products.

    • That exemption is what the antis are so miffed about. They want essentially ‘strict liability’ for any injury that occurs to anyone as a result of any use of a firearm to be reachable back to the manufacturer because of the ‘inherently dangerous’ nature of the product.

      We all know the antis get really pissed off when they can’t have their way, and they will keep chipping away until someone listens to them and cracks the door open, either legislatively or judicially.

      • This.. and the disconnect.

        They love the “guns should be like cars” analogy.

        -If a car’s brakes fail, or it has ‘unintended acceleration’,the manufacturer will be held liable.
        -If a person controlling a car steers it into a crowd of people, the manufacturer is not culpable.

        -If a gun’s trigger fails, and has ‘unintended discharge’, the manufacturer will be held liable.
        -If a person controlling a gun fires it into a crowd of people, the manufacturer is not culpable.

        It seems to me that the antis want gun manufacturers to shoulder MORE liability (to an absurd extent) versus car manufacturers, and make the manufacturer somehow liable for the conscience, judgment, decision making and ethics of the user.

        This isn’t the case for cars, spray paint, cold medications, industrial machinery, or anything else — but they fell it should be true for firearms.

        (I’m also tired of the chant that ‘the ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill’ – On its face, not true. While they’re the ones who maintain the ‘sporting purpose’ standard, admitting that fact themselves. But that’s another issue I suppose. )

        • The analogy also fails when you consider that the total yearly number of deaths related to cars and deaths related to guns are almost exactly the same.

          And if it’s *accidental* deaths we’re talking about, cars are more dangerous than guns to the tune of about 30,000 deaths per year.

          Tell me again…which one of these things is “specifically designed to kill,” and what does that have to do with anything?

  11. Let’s see, if I was to have my gun as “licensed and registered as my car,” then:

    I would be able to own any size gun (because I can own any size car)
    I would be able to own a full auto gun that can shoot any amount of ammo (becauseI can own a car that can go any speed)
    It would be legal for me to carry my gun everywhere (because it is legal to take my car everywhere)
    I would not need a background check (because I don’t need one to purchase a car.)

  12. The anti’s run off a fearful mental image because they don’t understand the “enemy.” They wont listen or learn the truth about the 2A and law abiding citizens. In effect, they torture themselves with their own fantasy.

  13. “God” in the various presentations is responsible for all the current Middle East turmoil and many past wars. Seems hypocritical that he invokes him as a way to ban guns.

    • Yep. One minute the religious guys are saying God commanded them to slaughter us. The next minute they’re claiming god is against guns. Our guns. God only loves guns used by tax collectors and politicians.

      What rubbish. As for the cars/guns analogies the left loves…I would like to pull a Rand Paul and immediately ask this: Do the anti’s believe that someone who “accidentally” crashes their car into mine and causes me a broken finger and thousands of dollars of loss ought to go to jail for five years and lose their right to vote or own a gun? How about ten years for the punk who gets caught driving without a license? Without insurance?

      OK. Let’s give that a try!

      • These idiots ignore the fact that Christ Himself told his followers to go out and buy swords – and to sell their outer garments to raise the money for swords, if they couldn’t afford them outright. Our Lord and Savior didn’t object to the DEFENSIVE use of weapons (though I am sure the worldly necessity of such saddened Him), just the INAPPROPRIATE use of them (like when Peter tried to stop the mob from taking Christ away to be put on trial, which in Peter’s doing so, was acting in a manner that was contrary to God’s ultimate plan for mankind’s Salvation).

  14. Driving laws regulate driver behavior. If the person violates driving rules, they get a ticket, or arrested, and punished aa consequence for unsafe or illegal driving. Manslaughter, negligence, foe example, of bad judgement, or malign intent of the driver.

    We have a whole body of laws, that pertain to people using a gun. And consequences for the person for the bad judgement or illegal use.

    You dont hear “fake do it for the children” groups advocating to “ban all cars” for everyone, because of the criminal acts of one driver, or similarly ban all cars for typical groups, despite typical group behavior, like teen drunk drivers., or banning all cellphones because so many teens hurt themselves and others texting while driving.

    Because that would not be “common -sense”. You dont punish all people for the mistakes of the few, Or take away cellphones, from all.

    You don’t punish law abiding tool users of their tool using rights, for the failure of individuals to follow the law on use of tools, either. That makes no common sense, either.

    Nor would you allow legislatures or law enforcement authorities to make nonsensical rules, like microtagging every gallon of gas used, to hypothetically tie that use to the car, later. That would only make sense as a completely corrupt abuse of law makinf and enforcement powers to instead, seize all cars.

  15. This gent reminds me of that segment of the Boomers who admit “there are whole years of the sixties they cant remember”. No wonder the complete collapse of logic and higher order executive brain function now.

    Something to think about, on marijuana legislation…wait that would be an infringement of their “individual right to choose”.

  16. I usually consider the source before reading and evaluating an editorial or polemic. The GBG ‘home’ page. ‘about us,’ and ‘links’..provide no identities (let alone biographies) of the key people: David Eggert is the front man for GBG. Not much information is available about him. He is “retired,” though from what isn’t stated in any easily-accessible Google doc. I would say he isn’t retired, but rather lateralled into a new career line, “501(c)’s for Fun and Profit.” I note the church his wife leads has recently passed an anti-gun-violence resolution copied from the Methodists. Ah, marital harmony! I looked in their annual report for an “urban teenagers please stop mugging people” resolution, but couldn’t find one. They can’t resolve against the criminals, only against ropes, guns, 2×4’s and such? That seems like avoiding the real issue.

    David does seem to be the master of spiritual money raising, especially active in his own church pushing the creation of a ‘Legacy Ministry’ to “reawaken the tradition” of leaving your bucks to the church. (Aren’t you glad your grandparents didn’t overdo that tradition? I’d like to “reawaken the tradition” of keeping your money for your kids’ and grandkids’ education and business founding.) The Legacy Ministry will seek donations (binding commitments) to the ‘Legacy Fund.’ And Dave has newly set up, with his fellow Disciples, the ‘Legacy Society’: You get to belong to this if you give to….the Legacy Fund! In other words, guys, Dave says leave your money to the church of which his wife Kris is the pastor. Please. Is this how the original disciples functioned? If so, who’s got their hands on the original Jerusalem Legacy Fund in this century?

    Meanwhile Dave Eggert has created his very own 501(c) to which you can donate…to further his, uh, work. This is separate from the church. It seems to be run by Dave. I’m getting the sense that everyone of a very spiritual nature feels compelled to start collecting money, tax-free money, because…they have expenses, like travel, books, posters. On one hand, I ask “why should I be subsidizing (by what tax pros call legislative ‘tax spending’) a 501(c) devoted to robbing me of my constitutional rights?” On the other hand, “why do I not have a cleverly-named 501(c) of my own to encourage the education of those ignorant of the constitution? (Oops, that’s just the sort Lois Lerner and Koskinen put a millenial hold on!)

    I won’t even get into the “Religions Breed War” bit, or my puzzlement at why God does not stop genocides and world wars. I’ll think about that next week…..

  17. “The state sanctioned privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public roads is not [a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right]. I am NOT convinced that this statement is correct; and, if it is not correct, to articulate it does not necessarily serve the goal of supporting the 2A.
    We have a Constitutionally-protected right to travel. That implies a right to travel according to contemporary means. At the founding, it did not include the right to travel on foot but exclude travel on a horse or in a carriage. Once railroads were built it did not include on foot, on a horse or in a horse-drawn carriage but exclude travel by train; and, so forth.
    IF driving a vehicle IS a privilege – as that term is intended here – then it might be rationed based on some legislatively determined need. E.g., each State’s legislature might decide that State employees are to be licensed. Likewise, men-of-means along with their chauffeurs. And, of course, the drivers of such mens’ trucks. Naturally, a license issued by one State would not be honored by any other State. A man-of-means would need to secure the privilege of driving in each State where he and his employees might travel. All others are at liberty to walk; but they have no “right” to a driver’s “license”.
    Such a privilege would be extremely limiting; naturally. Some workable provision would have to be made to support interstate commerce. Congress would probably see fit to grant a special privilege to all Federal and State employees who retired after 10 years of service (or were disabled before completing 10 years). These retired government employees would be specially deserving of the privilege of driving across all State boundaries.
    Such a scheme for granting/withholding drivers’ licenses would be a “privilege” as used here. It would also fly in the face of POLITICAL reality. To so dole-out the “privilege” of driving would so gore the oxen of 98% of the adult population that the voters would never stand for it. I’ve now made a political argument against the possibility of any such scheme; but, not yet made a Constitutional argument.
    Suppose the State laws for issuing drivers’ “licenses” are as they are today with one exception. Suppose they arbitrarily EXCLUDE some politically POWERLESS class; e.g., Native Americans; or, immigrants from India. All we need is some thin pretext. Native Americans never developed the technology of motorized vehicles and so can be excluded. Immigrants from India are habituated to driving on the wrong side of the road; a habit that can’t be unlearned without jeopardy to the public safety. No such pretext could survive judicial scrutiny nor the smell test among voters generally (notwithstanding any interest in supporting the adversely affected minuscule classes.)
    I would argue that under our Constitution there is a RIGHT to DRIVE a motor vehicle subject only to minimal and readily justifiable constraints. My father began driving at the age of 8; eventually States began to impose minimum age restrictions; drivers must have reached the mid-teens. My father’s driver’s test was answering a single question: “Young man, do you know how to drive?” Having rendered the correct answer, he was issued a driver’s license. I had to answer dozens of written questions and demonstrated behind-the-wheel skills. (I could drive with my parents after only the written test.) In fact, hardly anyone is refused the issuance of a driver’s license for reasons unrelated to a lack of driving competence. Hardly anyone’s driver’s license is suspended or revoked without having first manifested repeated refusal or inability to conform to the laws concerning responsible driving.
    We do not object to limitations on the bearing of arms by youth of tender age; nor to sale of guns to minors. We do not object to training or testing for hunters; especially youthful hunters. We accept limitations on discharging guns within municipal boundaries (and similar restrictions). If keeping and bearing arms were regulated in ways analogous to operating motor vehicles on public roads we would not be – politically – “up-in-arms” (for the most part).
    Our objections relate – primarily – to the Federal and State regulation of arms bearing that is based on membership in-a-class.
    Retired and disabled law enforcement officers are exempted from State concealed-carry laws because they are members of the prescribed class. A former LEO who was disabled early in his career did not accrue 10 years of experience on-the-street to have earned that privilege. Nor a former LEO who spent much of his career behind a desk. Nor a retired prison guard whose on-duty responsibility precluded his bearing arms.
    In contrast, a highly trained and highly skilled civilian’s capacity to use arms responsibility will not qualify him for a nation-wide exemption from State concealed carry laws. Such a civilian is simply NOT a member of the privileged CLASS.
    Employees of armored courier companies are entrusted with the money and property of men-of-means. Often, these are minimum-wage employees; very few of them have undertaken their State’s police academies’ training programs for use-of-force. Such employees are privileged to bear arms in “sensitive” places. E.g., I witnessed such a currier making a delivery to the traffic fine office in a court house in NJ! Here, the privilege of carrying is based on very little training and primarily on the “NEED” of men-of-means to protect their PROPERTY. I.e., employee protecting property is membership in a CLASS.

    It seems to me that driving a car and carrying a gun are comparably dangerous activities. If-and-to-the-extent that each represents some contingent risk to public safety then each is subject to a minimal level of regulation on a strict-scrutiny basis. E.g., a legislature could set a minimum age requirement at any level below (but not above) the age of majority. A legislature could require a demonstration of knowledge and performance at some minimum level. It could not, however, set the minimal demonstration of knowledge/performance above that imposed on either LEOs or armed couriers. A legislature could suspend or revoke carry upon conviction of a crime involving misbehavior (discharging within a municipal area; brandishing; etc.)
    I am NOT saying here that driving a car and carrying a gun are more-or-less identical. (E.g., I would be more amenable to universal car registration than I would be to universal gun registration.) What I AM saying is that most things we call “licenses” or “permits” are – in fact – RIGHTS that can be withheld or suspended ONLY for a good-enough cause. Usually, the standard of scrutiny ought to be “strict” or “intermediate” vs. whim or political favor.
    Nor am I saying that the state of all/most licensure/permitting are – in fact – where they ought to be under the Constitution or even public sentiment. Instead, what I’m saying is that judicial decisions seem to be trending in the direction of compelling State legislatures to have a rational basis to their licensing/permitting laws.
    We should NOT argue that RKBA is a RIGHT while driving [or barbering] is a mere PRIVILEGE bestowed or withheld by political will. Instead, we should argue that RKBA is a RIGHT akin to the RIGHT to engage in any other peaceful and non-injurious activity such as living, exercising liberty or pursuing happiness. We error in admitting to a sharp distinction between enumerated rights vs. rights that were not so enumerated but none-the-less contemplated by the 9A (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

    The police and employees of men-of-means are NOT the ONLY-ONES; they put their kilts on one-leg-at-a-time just like the rest of us citizens do.

    • Yep. Those driving professionally, paid for their services, are engaging in commerce, which may be regulated, licensed, etc. This was true even of horse-drawn carriage drivers. Teamsters originally were in charge of teams of horses, hence the name.
      The average Joe needed no license to drive his carriage.

  18. Outlaw cars and only outlaws will drive cars. No, seriously, if he was so interested in saving lives, the best car safety feature would be there complete absence – as it would with firearms. The problem, however, is I’d have to walk everywhere and there would still be violent criminals along the way. Oh and no worries, I’m sure we could carve out an exception to both for current and former LEOs.

    • You poor misguided person. You think that all of our rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Apparently you have never actually read those amendments.

  19. I guess this man of the cloth has neglected to study his bible. Specifically Luke 22:36 “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

    But I guess that doesn’t fit the desired narrative.

  20. A godless statist a religious statist all the same. I went to their Web site. A “coalition of faiths” . They are a bunch of godless people wearing a religious costume trying another way to disarm people. Interesting how godless persons use religious speech to take away the guns of law abiding citizens.

    In a previous post we discussed bible based gun rights.

  21. If one has a right to travel but the right can be severely restricted – as in prohibiting the most common method of travel (driving) without government permission – then why does the same logic not apply to firearms? Using the same logic, we could say that one has the “right to keep & bear arms” but the most common arms could be restricted (perhaps people are only “allowed” to have bolt-action rifles and break-action shotguns) without permission. Perhaps most arms could be prohibited under the same logic.

    If you’re suggesting we DON’T have a right to travel, on what basis do you make this statement? How can free people not have a right to peaceably travel in their own country?

    If the 9th amendment (the one that says that we have rights not specifically enumerated by the constitution) means anything, I’d think it means we have the right to travel without government permission. Yes, the government has claimed ownership of the roads and declared that you can’t use them without permission. That doesn’t make it proper or correct.

    Driving is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A PRIVILEGE. Please do NOT USE the “guns are a right, driving is a privilege” argument. It does nothing for us and can be used against us.

Leave a Reply

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