Jamie Kitman (courtesy automobilemag.com)

Powered by The New York Times‘ endless war on gun rights, auto writer (and lawyer!) Jamie Kitman [above] posted a polemic called Guns and Their Users Should Be Regulated Like Cars and Drivers Are. If you think the headline’s a bit awkward — not to mention Germanic and Yoda-like — try reading Mr. Kitman’s convoluted argument to license guns like cars. It goes a little something like this:

Courts may hold that driving is a privilege not a right, but it is a privilege so completely and readily granted that the freedom to own and operate an automobile is better described as a supra-right, more fundamental than many. The automobile and gasoline lobbies, which have made the case for easy car ownership and agreeable national policy through the years, dwarf the power and financial influence of the N.R.A. And yet cars and their fuel have been regulated.

As a car writer, surely Mr. Kitman meant to say driving’s a Supra right. Which makes just about as much sense as his attempt to redefine a privilege (driving) as a right more fundamental than many. The right to feel safe? The right to a cell phone? Anyway, far be it for me to fisk Mr. Kitman’s ideas about automotive and firearms equivalency when a commentator named Dave wrote what could be — should be? — the last word on the subject. Setting aside the whole natural, civil and Constitutional right misegos.

Don’t pull this nonsense over people’s’ eyes about how we should regulate guns like cars, because frankly, guns are already more regulated than cars.

I have to undergo a background check in almost all cases when I buy a gun. Do you have to when you buy a car?

There are wait periods for buying guns in most states. Do you have one when buying a car?

You have to be a US citizen or on a green card to buy a gun. How about a car?

Can’t legally own, possess, or purchase a gun if you’re a violent felon. How about a car?

On and on and on.

So stop it. Seriously, you’re giving attorneys a bad name.

See, now that’s funny! The bit about attorneys. Right Ralph? Johannes? Bueller?

Recommended For You

81 Responses to The Last Word About the Gun-Automobile Comparison? Probably Not

  1. I’ve always compared guns to seatbelts, not cars.

    That seemed like a better analogy regarding usage and having the mindset of personal responsibility. Getting in an auto accident is unlikely but it’s better to buckle up for safety then to be caught without one.

    Defensive driving is also a decent analogy for self defense.

    Also the police rarely prevent accidents but show up afterwards, which is usually the case for DGUs.

  2. I always laugh when the gun-car issue is dug up. Comparisons are not needed nor are they even remotely appropriate. Until driving a car becomes a part of the Bill of Rights, or in some other manner becomes a constitutionally protected right, it is all just grasping at their own sense of logic in a world of lawful fact.

    • Personally, I believe that driving should be recognized as a constitutional right under the 9th Amendment. Personally owned motor vehicles are the most efficient way for a person to travel in this country and I believe it is an infringement on the freedom to move about the country to impose fees (licencing fees, registrations fees, emissions fees, etc) on that right. Just like guns are the most efficient form of self defense and are codified in the 2A, driving should be recognized through the 9A. I realize I am in the super minority for this opinion because society has been ingrained with the idea that we need permission from the state to operate our own personal transportation, but it doesn’t change my belief.

      • Thank you for your oppinion. Driving is a right that the citizens of the united states did not protect from government overreach and subsequently has been dammed to the noman’s land of “privilege”… hmm

      • Thank you NYC2AZ … I have an unalienable right to travel. Period. Full stop. Regardless . of . what . the . Constitution . says . or . does . not . say !!!

        My manner of conveyance is irrelevant … whether I walk on my feet, walk on my hands, run, ride a horse, ski, sled on snow, sail in a boat, ride a bicycle, snowmobile, hovercraft, or an automobile is irrelevant. As long as my conveyance is not actively damaging public roads or waterways, I am good to go.

        And no, speed is not relevant. A person could ride a quarter-horse at nearly 40 miles per hour. If the rider and quarter horse (whose combined weight could easily be on the order of 1,000 pounds) collide with a pedestrian, cyclist, or even an automobile, the resulting collision could easily kill either party. How about a person riding a bicycle down a long mountain grade? They could easily reach a speed of nearly 60 miles per hour. If they collide with something, that could easily be lethal. And how about a sled? Sledding down that same grade on packed snow a person could easily reach 50 miles per hour. Do we require a license to purchase and ride a sled? How about a person practicing for the Olympics who is ice skating on a lake? They could reach a speed of 35 mph … and collide with someone else on the lake with deadly results. Do we require a license to purchase ice skates and to skate?

      • I agree. In the same way that your right to keep and bear arms is instrumentally protecting your right to self-defense and preservation, your right to travel freely should be held to be instrumentally protected by access to vehicular transportation.

      • Agree wholeheartedly 100%. Driving is a right. Not all forms of transportation are a right, for example driving a semi truck or one of those tanker trucks with the dangerous chemicals, or an aircraft. But a basic automobile is definitely a right. The irony is that we regulate guns more in this country than cars even though guns are supposed to be a right and cars supposedly not. There are no limits on horsepower, torque, engine, acceleration, top speed, etc…you don’t see thundering editorials about how, “No one needs a high-powered sports car!!!” The Left did get into a tizzy over SUVs for some reason, but aside form an ill-fated attempt in California to ban them, nothing has come of it.

  3. So if my Drivers License is honored in NYC and I can drive my car on Fifth Avenue; I should have NYC honor my Indiana Carry Permit and I should be able to run around NYC with an Indiana legal AR-15 with a full 30 round magazine. Right?

    • My thoughts exactly. National concealed carry reciprocity and an even playing field across the board would be needed to be like a driver’s license. That would destroy state’s rights, though, I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not considering Federal law would most likely not be as fair and would most likely lean more towards something like California. In the short term mayors of urban areas in particular don’t want national reciprocity because out-of-towners or out-of-state people would have more rights than their own people.

      • National concealed carry reciprocity and an even playing field across the board would be needed to be like a driver’s license. That would destroy state’s rights, though…

        The several States don’t have authority to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Denying the right to bear arms is a violation of the second amendment. Further, the several States don’t have the authority to deny the citizens of other States the equal protection of their laws. Denying non-residents the right to bear arms, while residents enjoy that right under State law, is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

        …I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not considering Federal law would most likely not be as fair and would most likely lean more towards something like California.

        Not at all. A Federal law need say nothing more than states that issue carry licenses to their own residents must honor the carry licenses issued by other states to their own residents.

        Would that force Indiana to create New Jersey type licensing laws, or vice versa? No. Would it piss off New Jersey to no end, to be forced to allow Indiana residents to carry in New Jersey, using their Indiana LTCH? You bet it would. It will also piss off New Jersey residents, who see non-residents with more freedom to exercise natural rights in their own state than they themselves have.

        And then unconstitutional laws might finally be forced to change.

    • State to state drivers license validity is a state to state reciprocity matter that was settled long ago. Interestingly though they all didn’t always report your activities – like did you get a ticket or do you have more than one license (don’t ask why I know this). As I recall they used to have, perhaps still do what was called “driver compacts” setting out how all of this worked.

      Yes it is much like CC reciprocity across state lines. The individual states have to agree to agree. But near as I know it is not a matter of the Feds.

      • Which is funny considering SCOTUS demanded that states recognize other states’ marriage licenses. If we’re going to work over “equal protection under the laws”, CCW reciprocity most certainly should follow the same suit.

  4. “Don’t pull this nonsense over people’s’ eyes about how we should regulate guns like cars, because frankly, guns are already more regulated than cars.”

    Bull-friggin’-crap. That’s absurd. I register my car. I pay taxes on my car. I am required to own insurance on my car. I am required to get my car inspected annually. And if I drive my car when I’m impaired, it can have some pretty drastic, life-altering consequences. I’ll take a one-time background check on my car any day!

    • “…I register my car. I pay taxes on my car. I am required to own insurance on my car. I am required to get my car inspected annually.”

      And all of that reduces vehicle-violence how?

      • First I would say that driving and just about everything is a right given to us by GOD and with all rights you have responsibility with those rights. I hate to tell you but you do not have to register your car. You only register it to pay a use tax for driving it on the public road to maintain the road’s, If i do not take it off my property or any other privet property I do not have to register it, I do not need a license to drive my car if I drive it on my own property. I do not have to have insurance on my car if I do not take it on the public road ways. Insurance is only required to make sure if you hurt someone that you can pay for it. But it is not and never should have been something the government has a right to mandate.

    • I would gladly pay taxes on my guns to support a national system of free ranges and training, if you want to use the car analogy. We could call that a well regulated militia. What do you think?

      • I’m sure the government would agree with this idea. They would then register any gun you want to take to a range, tie up your promised allotment of ammo in a bureaucratic black hole, somehow lose your registration and thus spot on the range, and tell you to go home. So we would be paying to keep people out of ranges, and since the government would most likely never construct new ranges we would be paying to lock ourselves out of our current ranges. That wouldn’t last too long, though, once they get enough registered guns they could just take them and remove the need for the ranges in the first place. They might allow some people onto the ranges, which will be staffed not with range officers but ATF agents that would jail anyone for “improper use”, aka going against a ridiculous set of range rules that constantly change, are not stated, or are so ambiguous as to be impossible to comply. I’d like to keep the government as far away from the whole exercising my rights process as possible.

        Gotta think like a gun-grabber, after all, no one wants take your guns*.

        *They just want to confiscate them and smelt them into statues, they don’t want to take them for themselves because they have no need for guns.

    • Well daveR, sucks to live where ever you live. Instead of registration, we get a hasslesome but useless background check (think Wade Michael Page). We got extra taxes on the purchase of the firearm and ammunition on top of our state sales tax. And if we use our firearm in an inappropriate way, we also get life altering consequences.

      I realize it’s difficult to use reason and logic when your rage and hatred is impairing those capacities. Next time, take some deep breaths and try to calm yourself. It doesn’t help your cause to be so oblivious to facts.

    • ” I register my car. … I am required to own insurance on my car. I am required to get my car inspected annually. “

      Logic fail.

      None of those apply to buying or the simple act of owning a car.

      You most certainly can buy a car and not register it.

      You most certainly can buy a car and have no insurance on it.

      You most certainly can buy a car and not have it ever inspected.

      The background check and other gun purchase restrictions are required for simple purchase and ownership, even without any presumption of use.

      • You are right. In theory you could buy a car, have it shipped to your home, and keep it on property. It needn’t never trouble the hardworking bureaucrats at the DMV. Nor would you need to bother the poor souls at the insurance company.

        Of course, unless you have private roads, it would kind of just sit there, but the theory is sound.

        Here’s a thought – is it illegal to drive drunk on a private road on your own property? Could you just get blasted and shred around your 40 acres and there wouldn’t be a damn thing the cops could do about it as long as you didn’t accidentally run over your wife or kid?

        • Calling an argument “theory”, and then using sarcasm instead of facts is NOT how you rebut someone’s assessment, especially when the assessment you’re rebutting was, you know, factual.

          There ten of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of vehicles purchased every year and without gov’t permission or oversight. Cars purchased for drag strip use only, kit cars, project/restoration vehicles, four wheelers, ATVs, dirt bikes, farm vehicles (which never leave the farm), etc.

          Your “theory” assessment only proves one thing, you’ve lived your whole life in the city or burbs, and aslo, have likely never done serious work on cars and trucks.

    • But no one is advocating bans on yor “car rights” to eliminate drunk driving, vehicular homicide, use by criminals as get away cars, 50,000 highway deaths every year. If it saved one life it would be a “common sense restriction”. Wouldn’t it?

      • Spot on William.

        Mr. Kitman’s article is chock full of false equivalencies. He claims that firearms cause about the same number of deaths annually as motor vehicles which therefore justifies government “regulation”. Here is the problem. Virtually all of those annual motor vehicle deaths are unintentional due to negligence or accidents … and vehicle improvements could reduce many of those unintentional or accidental deaths. On the other hand, virtually all annual firearm deaths are intentional. (Of the roughly 32,000 deaths annually from firearms, only about 600 are due to negligence — the rest are intentional due to suicide or homicide.) Firearm improvements will NOT reduce many, if any at all, of those intentional suicides or homicides.

        And I haven’t even touched on the moral aspect of how/when it is righteous for government to interfere with private business.

        Product designers can only do so much to make their products “idiot proof”. All the government regulation and safe design in the world will not stop someone from taking the safest, most government regulated screw driver ever created and stabbing themselves or someone else in the eye. At some point, you cannot fix stupid as the saying goes. And so it goes with “regulation” and the intentional use of firearms to harm someone.

    • “I register my car…. I am required to own insurance on my car. I am required to get my car inspected annually. And if I drive my car when I’m impaired, it can have some pretty drastic, life-altering consequences….”

      None of these are required to actually purchase a car, only to legally drive it on public roads.

    • If you do not use that car on public roadways, none of that applies. And specifically that is to USE it on public roadways…

      No inspection registration is needed to transport your car. I’ve owned race cars that never once were registered. The track had rules, but some ranges have rules. Some events have rules. I can have as many as I want. I can order them online and have them delivered directly to me without being a dealer. I can own ACTUAL SURPLUS MILITARY vehicles. I can own an HMMV so long as it doesn’t have military weaponry. I can own a tank, but not it’s gun. And all of this with no background check, registration, insurance, or the fed threatening to come take it away.

      I can own a race car that would be the equivalent to a machine gun. There is no registration to do that. I can BUILD a race car from scratch. I can even sell that race car that I built and not get charged with a felony for producing it without the manufacturer’s license. I don’t have to get my top law enforcement officer’s sign off to have that race car on my property. There are even areas here in AZ where I could use a non-registered vehicle with no vin freely and not get hassled about it.

      • You can own a tank with a live gun. Saw a British cold war tank, Centurion or Challie maybe? Not up to date on my Cold War era British armor. Anyways, live 120mm and a full load of shells. Cost a quarter million. Gun is a destructive device and each HE shell is a destructive device. Solid shot of any kind is unregulated. Tank itself is unregulated. If you shoot HE shells you need a LEO observer to sign off that the shell was destroyed (LEO sign off required for the destruction of a destructive device ).

    • daveR, other than paying taxes, which you do on the purchase of almost anything, all of the things you mentioned are what is required if you drive your car on a public road. To simply own the car and even to use it on private property, none of those things are required. At least not in Texas.
      I can buy, or build, a vehicle that is not legal to ever drive on a public road, even one that is physically impossible to drive on a public road. I can operate it on my property or other private property, and I can sell it at will. As long as taxes are paid, I will have no interaction with the government. This is done for ranch and hunting vehicles all the time, at least here in Texas.
      How I wish guns were the same way. As long as its on my private property (and my person is my private property) the government would have zero say what so ever in whatever I did. I could build or buy a full auto .72 caliber SBR with explosive rounds, and as long as I paid the sales tax, there would be no hurdles to jump over, no regulations to be had.
      If I wanted to shoot it on public property, yes, I’d have to register it, have it inspected, all of that other stuff. Deal.

  5. Regulate guns like cars? If he means no background checks, free to buy as many as you want, easy financing for any purchase, able to “fuel up” my gun at dozens of shops on my way home, and an employer that gives you a secure place to store it at work (because cars are so hard to do “open carry” with at the office, after all), I’m all for it.

    • “…Regulate guns like cars? If he means no background checks, free to buy as many as you want, easy financing for any purchase …”

      Could you imagine the Super Bowl TV spots sponsored by Smith and Wesson or the Oscars sponsored by Bushmaster, just like car manufacturers sponsor them now? Lots of liberal heads exploding between the Budweiser and Tampax commercials.

  6. And vehicles that never go on the road are completely unregulated. I can build or buy whatever I want, with no limits, take it to the track, or private land, and use it how I see fit.

    Fine, regulatemy carry gun, make me register it; I’ll make up for it with what I’ll keep at home and take to the range. It will terrify you, I’m certain of that.

  7. Oye Veh!!!
    What a waste of print and my time.
    Here we go again. Another pseudo intellect comparing a Constitutional right to a State privilege.
    What a tiresome BS analogy.

    I might as well be watching the State of The Union lies right now.

  8. Cars are way more dangerous than guns.

    There were 7 firearms murders in my state last year. 30 more with knifes and blunt objects etc compared to 300 road deaths down from almost a 1000 a year back in the 80’s

  9. What the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a dirty, scum sucking bottom feeder and the other one is a fish.

    • A person is a lawyer when he acts like a lawyer, and not a lawyer when he acts like an assh0le. Based on that, you are not a lawyer.

      • You know nothing about me, as you talk $hit from behind a keyboard. I’ll leave you with the opportunity to leave the last comment in this pointless conversation.

        • Tom – relax – it was a joke. You said exactly what he wanted you to say so he could finish the punchline. Besides – Ralph was a lawyer – whom you just called a dirty scum sucking bottom feeder.

  10. I wish. A 12 year old can drive 150 miles an hour in his personally owned Ferrari, without a seatbelt. On private property of course. All totally legal.

    Only need a tag, drivers license, insurance and so forth on the public roads.

    If only guns WERE treated like cars!

  11. It’s not even right to compare driving a car on public roads to concealed or open carry; when you are driving, the business end of your 2ton murder machine is out in the open the whole time, sailing head first towards thousands of innocent people, and your two little hands are the only thing averting a disaster. When carrying, your 2 lb piece with “maybe manstoppers” (because pistol rounds aren’t nearly as sure a thing as a speeding car) is pointed at the ground all day, your hands don’t even matter unless there’s some other tragedy already happening. Don’t fall for the false analogy.

  12. Even a dumb lawyer can pass the Bar. See Exhibit A, above. Our rights are not predicated on social utility, but as a protection against an overbearing government. Although driving has a great deal of social utility, its regulation has everything to do with protecting people from the negligence of others, not protection from the government.

    As an aside, I read a comparison between civil rights in England and the U.S.–the sum and substance of which is we have them and they don’t, because their rights have been subjugated to a social utility analysis. For example, if your speech is deemed “harmful” or “offensive”–which by the way includes reading out of the Bible (preaching) or quoting Winston Churchill, that speech can be the basis of an arrest and prosecution. this lawyers “analysis” depends upon the same social utility analysis that has lead to the loss of rights for residents of England and its territories. That should not and cannot be allowed to happen here.

  13. So Kitman wants guns treated like cars? Then he must want shooting classes in High School, a license that must be accepted in every state, no license requirement for guns at home, and no restrictions on horsepower. No, I don’t think he wants that at all. He is — what’s the expression — oh yeah. He’s full of sh!t.

    Ki-i-tman, come out to play-ee-yay.

    • The automobile / guns comparison is always ridiculous.

      If guns were regulated like cars I should be able to have machine guns, rocket launchers, artillery, etc., on my private property. I can buy a car with no registration, no insurance, no background check, absolutely no regulations at all – if I keep it on my private property. Liberal democrats would absolutely not want this at all.

      However, they continue to make the lame argument and continue to pick and choose which regulations they would like applied – they call this “compromise.” Taking from us, and giving nothing in return.

      • Spot on. His argument, and the entire spectrum of comparing firearms and automobiles, is rife with poor scholarship and illustrates a complete misunderstanding of how dissimilar they are. Every time I hear this argument it seems that it was based in complete ignorance (regarding firearms) and some resultant, illogical fear – I fear guns, more guns means more crime, so let’s regulate them more. No acknowledgement of the human element, because we all know people never drive without vehicle inspections, registrations and insurance. Maybe he will remind us how criminals respect the law….

    • The automobile analogy is simply foolish as drawn by Kitman. He argues that a constitutionally protected right, keeping and bearing arms, should be regulated more strictly than car-use privileges. Yet he then, out of the blue, points out that an unprotected privilege, driving a motor vehicle on a public road….actually is in fact protected even more than some rights:

      “Courts may hold that driving is a privilege not a right, but it is a privilege so completely and readily granted that the freedom to own and operate an automobile is better described as a supra-right…”

      I think the chief flaw in the argument is that it is simply counter-factual. His driving privilege can and will be suspended or revoked if he commits any one of a number of punishable actions, down to an including simple failure to renew his license. Kitman probably wishes that same fate upon gun owners. Supra-right, indeed.

      He argues that gun ownership should be regulated like car ownership, but then posits that car ownership isn’t actually very regulated. Kitman, make up your f’g mind!

  14. Do you think people would like it if getting a drivers license were like the process for getting a concealed carry permit?

  15. Driver’s License: Learned to drive in Vietnam; my unit issued me an Army driver’s license. Returned to the States, got a state driver’s license as an out-of-state-transfer with my Army license and reassignment papers. No written exam, no driving test. Been renewing my driver’s license ever since.

    License to Carry Firearms: Filled out a one-page form, handed over some money. Shortly thereafter they mailed me a license. No written test, no classes, no firing range test. Been renewing that ever since.

    My driver’s license is good in all 57 states. My firearms license? No so much.

  16. Hopefully you all clicked on the link to the original diatribe and read the comments. At least half, even in the Times, were as negative as the comments here and made the same points. And not all of them were copies of the comments here.

  17. The gun industry more powerful than the car industry? really? A quick search on money puts the gun industry at about $15B in the US (on the highish side.) Mitsubishi makes about $15B worldwide alone and they’re 16 by numbers. VW is at $200B world wide (maybe not after the Diesel thing) which absolutely dwarfs the gun industry on its own.

  18. Well, you can own and drive a car without a license or registration, but in order to operate a vehicle on public roads, you must get a driver’s license and register your car. I can own and carry guns in my house without a license, but to go out in public I must get a carry license (and in Michigan we have to register our handguns). So there goes that argument.
    And the argument for registering a car is that it causes wear and tear on public property, so your registration fees partially help build and maintain the public infastructure they use.

  19. On the car thing. Who do I have to pay off, just like I do for the Privilage to drive. County,State and Feds.
    That’s all this is folks MONEY is the bottom line. Soon we’ll have to have special insurance to have guns in our homes/cars. Oh, and it will be mandatory to have this special insurance. No f’ing choice just like cars.

    Iam tired of all the BS. The USG needs to leave sleeping dogs lie………..

  20. Bloombag must be cutting checks for every anti-gun article written in the country, no matter how obtuse.
    Heck, if I knew I could get a $5000.00 check for writing idiotic anti-gun fiction, I’d still tell him to go hump a cactus.
    I’m cheap, but not that cheap!

  21. Sure why not-millions of uninsured,unregulated and unknown illegals driving. Yah and I got the Germanic reference. My German gramma used to say things like “make the door shut” (actually from the old Austro-Hungarian empire)-extremely German. Should we educate these dim bulbs about how stupid they are???

  22. Why is auto regulation made the benchmark gun regulation should be held to? The number of death and injuries caused by poor judgement, mechanical failure, poor driving ability and impaired driving aren’t low by any means. Anyone can sell a car – an individual, used car dealer or new car dealer has no duty to assess your fitness to operate a vehicle. There is no federal agency that scrutinizes the seller of a vehicle and the purchaser of a vehicle.

  23. I can buy or build any car I want, with any size engine, with any fuel capacity, of any design, without restriction or background check, as long as I don’t drive it on public roads.

    Suppose the grun-grabbers would be OK with a similar system for guns? Full-auto, suppression, short barrels, anything goes as long as the gun is only used on private property?

    Of course, that’s totally aside from my constitutional right to bear arms in public.

    Somehow, I don’t think that analogy is going where they want it to go.

  24. Biased anti-gun shills who have a large soapbox should be made to take firearms training courses until they are proficient in force on force training, then maybe they might understand that this position, the right one, requires honesty, respect, and discipline to own, operate, and maintain your firearms/ 2nd amendment rights.

    ps. you should be registered as a boot licking crony of those who wish to see us in chains.

  25. “So that means you want a 16 year old to be able to legally purchase a handgun or rifle?
    An AR15 with a 100 round drum that I buy in Ohio will be legal in California.
    A fully automatic rifle with a suppressor will be legal in California.
    I can carry a loaded firearm through out the country.
    I won’t need a background check to buy a gun.
    I can legally buy a gun in whatever state I happen to be traveling through and not have to have it shipped back to my home state.”

    I think that’ll be my new response to that claim. Otherwise I’ll need to type out the long winded response about how we should regulate cars like we do guns and how a car they buy in Ohio might not be legal in NJ or CA, etc.

  26. This guy will be pissed when he goes to prison for putting an aftermarket hardtop on his Miata, thereby creating an unregistered short wheelbased minivan. And god forbid the hardtop be imported, it might make the whole thing non-compliant with 922(r). I guess that does hinge on whether its automatic transmission was built before 1986, and whether the Miata is big enough to pass the import points test.

  27. Do you have to register an ATV? No, because it is not driven on public roads. Car registration is because you are paying and getting permission to drive your car on PUBLIC ROADS that belong to the government. Of course you have to pay and get permission to drive your car on PUBLIC ROADS that belong to the government.

    Canada recently stopped long gun registration because they discovered it served no useful purpose. All this tracing “crime guns” is useless and very seldom solves a crime. New York, NOLA, Australia and Canada, all prove the gun confiscation is EXACTLY one liberal government away from happening. Gun registration is only for confiscation and serves no useful purpose other than that.

    • Your RTKABA supersedes your fellow American citizens’ [and infinitely those who are not] authority to threaten it.

    • ” If you intend to only operate your ATV on private property, you do not have to notify the Washington DOL. Otherwise, you must register it.” Works for the ATV argument….. snow machines?.. not so much..

      “All snowmobiles, regardless if only restricted to private property, must be registered with the Washington DOL. It’s an easy process that requires visiting a vehicle licensing office.”

      ( DOL WEBSITE)

      • Register all anti-Constitutional gun-haters. It’s a simple process, kick down the door of your local POS (D)NC [communist] Party office and take their rolls. We can give the under-18 crowd a break, but they better choose sides quickly and carefully.

  28. Guns should be regulated like cars huh? So if I can, at 18 years of age, purchase with my money a 200+ MPH supercar with a standard drivers license, then I should be able to get a 200 rpm automatic weapon with a standard bg check. See? Solved.

  29. Car manufacturers build cars with: HUNDREDS of Horse power.. even when the law says your are limited to 70MPH.
    You are forced to comply to laws and rules, you have no say over.. traffic laws and speed limits are made by Commissions, not by voters.. dont like the speed limit? that stop sign in front of your house impedes your freedom of movement?.. tough..
    Bars have Parking lots.. drinking and driving is Illegal,anyone else see the connection?
    Window tint too dark?..They want to watch you, so theres a law against that.. dont like it?.. there is no way to vote against it.

    Cars are the gateway to rights violations.. it’s the default, defacto for Police to violate the rights you have, because they can Tie it to your ” privilege”. If they can think of it, it can be done

    1st A.. freedom of speech- Traffic tickets are not an admission of guilt, so it’s a moot point.
    2A gun in car…
    3rd- ( thankfully, cops dont need to sleep in your motorhome, but they can commandeer your ride when circumstances call for it )
    4th search and seizure, at the whim of LE
    5th refuse to answer the officers question go to jail for not cooperating.
    6th.. you dont get a trial.. traffic court is about reducing your fine.. not finding you innocent or guilty
    7th there is no trial for traffic court.
    8th cruel unusual punishment.. towing fees, impound fees, court fees, reinstatement fees.

    You a good driver?.. uh huh.. so is the rest of society.
    It is humanly impossible to go a single day without breaking a single traffic law while behind the wheel, this is exploited by Police in every possible way. If you own a car, or have a drivers license, You are subject to the whims of LE..

    By allowing ourselves and our mode of mobility to be licensed, we have consented to control in every part of our lives..
    Why is putting guns in the Licensing and registration category even being considered?

    • “7th there is no trial for traffic court.”

      Sure there is. Where’d you get that idea?

      Most traffic case trials are bench trials, but you can request a jury trial for traffic offenses. Very few people do it, but it does happen.

  30. It’s a similar false argument that is being used when comparing wearing seat belts to vaccine use. The ant-freedom tactics vary slightly in language, but are otherwise very similar propagandized script.

  31. Cars do not protect our rights and freedoms, guns do.

    What about “shall not be infringed” do people not understand? It’s there for a reason, to insure that no government (including our own) or individual will take our property, take our freedom or harm/kill us or anyone we protect.

    This is a right not given to us by our government or any individual it’s a universal right of mankind.

    It is our moral duty to have guns, train with them and use them if necessary. The USA was founded on these beliefs and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. If you think otherwise you do not understand what America is and represents, you have not done the research into the founding fathers and their reasoning.

  32. Jamie is much more of a d*ck in person than he is in person. I was able to largely avoid him, but not Brit Mark Gilles, who is WAY much more of a d*ck in person than he his in print.

Leave a Reply

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