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!
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…
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.
Not only that; I’m reasonably confident that felons can buy cars -and- be licensed to drive.
Hrmm…
Well played, sir. Also guns are protected under the Bill o Rights, while transportation is not.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, the 9th Amendment does that. Its safe to say the people traveling was an assumption by the founders. I can’t imagine someone telling Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, George Washington or even Andy Jackson that riding their horse was a privilege and try and drag them off it.
Hello,RIGHTS vs PRIVLEDGES,I know it’s a hard concept for LIBATARDS to grasp,that’s why they are libatards!
Better term for them is progressivus anti guntardus moronadonus!
Tax credits for USA made guns… Great idea, Nick!
I’d settle for no additional taxes on guns and ammunition.
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.
“…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.
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?
Criminals can’t be required to register their firearms, because filling out the paperwork would incriminate them, and the government can’t require anyone to incriminate himself.
“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 .
“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.
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.
Bravo. Well done!
FLAME DELETED
Oh. Well done! Can you send it to GUNS AND AMMO for publication, please? I hear they need a new staff editorialist!
For Jesus’ sake, Burke. Did you even read the article?
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.
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.
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..
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.
Complete blather from a NRA gun stroker!
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.
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.
Exactly, I can trailer a non street legal, non registered car anywhere I want.
cars nor firearms kill no one. without a human they are inoperable.
Let me introduce you to my Plymouth Fury. I call her Christine.
Don’t be so sure of that….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_(novel)
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.
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.
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.
OOoo, good one! I’ll add that to my list.
Not a good one, it SHOULD be required, along with government and civics.
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?
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.
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.
True, but that example was rendered irrelevant the second you said California.
Very very true… this damn state is so irrelevant…
Like your gun sucking argument you right wing nutjob!
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.
How about Hardship CCW permits for 14 year olds living in dangerous neighborhoods?
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.
Wow! Do these people not understand the difference between “not Constitutional” and “Unconstitutional”? We have our work cut out for us, don’t we?
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).
“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.
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.
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.”
You’re a fool if you think ANY appeasement strategy will work with the antis. They won’t stop until gun ownership has been eradicated and outlawed, and you want to help them with that by trying to give up some rights in the hopes of appeasing them?
“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.
Let’s treat guns like cars and have high schools offer a firearms education class like they often offer driver’s education courses.
Have schools teach firearms like government and civics, not like divers ed.
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.
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…
And the next time a polling official asks you to present ID in order to vote…
* 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.
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.
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…..
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
Agreed, there are alot of cars that can’t be sold in the US do to strict car regulations.
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
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.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=227
I’m late to the party, but I just got shown this article by a buddy. Here’s why this article is bunk: I own and operate several unlicensed, racing vehicles. I can fit none of them into my pocket and walk out of my house into the public sphere. None of my racing vehicles were designed with intended lethality in mind. We do not loose in excess of 30,000 lives per year to racing vehicles. Dilapidated farm trucks are not routinely implicated in accidental deaths, nor do they figure prominently in suicides. Unlicensed vehicles are not routinely transported across state lines, using straw buyers, in order to circumvent more stringent laws that are present in such places as Chicago or DC. 2nd degree murder by race car is not a thing, and criminals do not frequently employ race cars in the carrying out of crime.
The small point that licensing guns *exactly* like cars creates a large loophole in the agenda of making firearms less of a problem in our country is so small as to be not worth discussing. Some liberals want to take all your guns; I’m not one of them. I don’t believe that all gun owners are reactionary nutters that resist any reasonable efforts to make our nation safer. Surely, there is room for a compromise that asks gun owners to put up with a bit of governmental intrusion in service of reducing the 30k+ gun deaths a year that happen in our country.
The argument regarding lethality is off base because it uses the wrong denominator. It is not deaths or injuries per vehicle or gun that is relevant. The relevant measure is one of rate per hour of use. Of course there are far more deaths by vehicle. There are more vehicles and, they are in operation for a much larger period of time. Adjusted for time in use, firearms are exponentially more likely to result in accidental, illegal, or self injury or death.
I think for your first two bullet points, you need to understand that guns are intended to kill. Cars are not. The DO kill, but that’s certainly not their purpose. Guns, however, have on and only purpose: to kill.
As for that second to last one: a)assault rifles are not banned, and b) they shouldn’t be banned because they’re, as you say, “scary looking”, they should be banned because they kill people at a much greater rate than non-assault weapons. This is why it’s more difficult for mass shooters to be successful if they only use a shotgun/pistol/hunting rifle, etc.
You said it exactly. To compare automotive and guns due to the fact that they both kill people is disingenuous and misguided. Cars used properly, do not kill. Guns used at designed, do kill people.
Funny thing about cars, they are designed to transport people and possessions. Guns are designed to kill. To treat them the same is idiotic.
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/gun-advocates-are-right-we-should-compare-guns-to-cars/
This is a really, really, poorly argued article……..And I support gun ownership.
The bottom line is that the people have the right to regulate guns like cars should they choose to do so.
From DC vs. Heller: ‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”‘
The federal government could require license, registration, and liability insurance. Licensing provides some oversight that people with firearms can use them safely with lawful intent. Registration allows law enforcement to identify the path of weapons from the lawful market to individuals with illegal intent, critical to law enforcement efforts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Liability insurance appropriately reallocates the economic cost ($250 billion dollars a year) back to gun owners.
Additionally universal background checks, i.e. requiring all private sales to go through a background check system which includes all records of violent crime and mental illness, insures that there is sufficient oversight with regard to keeping guns out of the hands of these restricted classes of people.
All these measures are very constitutional based on SCOTUS 2nd amendment stare decisis.
What if you were to apply all current and proposed “common sense” gun laws to cars?
All vehicle transfers including private party transfers, must be conducted through a federal vehicle licensed (FVL) dealer, who is required by to conduct a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check and keep a record of the transfer. This includes private transfers at car shows, closing the “car show loophole”. A prohibited person is one who:
• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”
The recipient of a vehicle transfer must be a resident of the state in which the vehicle is currently registered. Vehicle transfers across state lines and only be done via a FVL.
There is a mandatory 3 day waiting period for the transfer of any vehicle.
Vehicles can only be driven by the registered owner. An NICS background check at a FVL is required when changing drivers which is considered a transfer of the vehicle.
All personal vehicles should have governors to limit the top speed to 55 MPH. No one needs a vehicle that can go over 55 mph.
Ban on high capacity fuel tanks. Vehicle fuel tanks are limited to a maximum capacity of 10 gallons. This forces drivers to stop frequently to refuel on long trips avoids driver fatigue and highway hypnosis. This also hinders fleeing criminals from avoiding law enforcement during high speed pursuits.
Ban on sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Heavier-duty SUVs are typically civilian versions of military vehicles (i.e. Hummers, Jeeps, Land Rovers, etc…) with a truck-style chassis and separate body Originally designed and built to be military vehicles, SUVs were not comprehensively re-designed to be safely used as passenger vehicles. SUVs can affect traffic safety. This height and weight poses a risk to drivers of smaller vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents, particularly side impacts. Larger vehicles can create visibility problems for other road users by obscuring their view of traffic lights, signs, and other vehicles on the road, plus the road itself. Drivers may themselves suffering poor visibility to the side and the rear, which has led to many deaths where vehicles have backed over small children. The wider bodies of larger vehicles mean they occupy a greater percentage of road lanes. Wider vehicles may also have difficulty fitting in some parking spaces and encroach further into traffic lanes when parked alongside the road. Vehicles of war are a danger to other drivers, belong on the battlefield and have no place on public streets. Because of greater height and weight and rigid frames
Ban automatic on automatic transmissions. If you’re not sober enough to shift, you shouldn’t be driving.
Ban on suppressors a.k.a. mufflers. Silent vehicles are a danger to pedestrians cannot hear vehicles approaching from a distance. Silent vehicles can also be used to commit crimes and avoid detection and capture. Hybrid vehicles must have their internal combustion engines continuously running. Fully electric vehicles are banned.
You must be 21 to buy and/or operate a vehicle.
Vehicles will be equipped with biometric “smart car” technology so that only the registered driver may operate it.
Vehicles must be securely stored when not being driven. Safe storage laws require people to responsibly store their vehicles and fuel when they are not in use in order to prevent minors, thieves, and other unauthorized users from gaining unsupervised access to vehicles. Safe storage laws prescribe affirmative safety requirements. These laws typically require that vehicles be stored in a locked structure or fenced area or disabled with a wheel lock or boot when not in use. Fuel must be removed and stored in an approved, locked container. These laws are necessary to shape responsible storage practices, prevent vehicle theft, and reduce vehicle suicides, accidents, and homicides by children and unauthorized users.
Require a permit to purchase. A purchaser identification card is required for purchase of vehicles, as well as for purchases of fuel. A permit to purchase a vehicle, valid for 90 days is required for each vehicle purchase. Only one vehicle can be purchased within a 30-day period. Issuing authorities require the applicant to justify the need for a vehicle before granting approval for the permit/ID card. Issuing authorities may arbitrarily deny purchase permits and ID cards.
Vehicle registration. The State Police shall maintains a record of all vehicle purchases/transfers, Purchases/Transfers by state residents must either be from a licensed dealer or a private individual who is a resident of the state. In both dealer and private purchases/transfers, a copy of the purchase permit is sent to the State Police. A NICS background check at the point of sale is required for all purchases.
License to operate on public roads. With few exceptions, Only highly trained professional drivers should be allowed on public roads. Restrict personal vehicle ownership and make use public transportation. No-Issue for ordinary citizens. The state calls its license a “permit to operate a motor vehicle” and is a “may-issue” by law for vehicle operation. Permit applications must:
• Specify in detail the necessity to operate a vehicle, as evidenced by employer requirements providing A letter of need from the applicants employer, geographical location or a medical condition that demonstrates a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be served by means of public transportation.
• Be a resident of the state in which they are applying.
• Be over 21 years of age.
• Pass a state approved training course at their own expense prior to submitting an application.
• Submit an official fingerprint card or be electronically fingerprinted at their own expense.
• Submit a $200 non-refundable application fee.
• Pass a NICS background check.
• Be approved by both the township’s police chief and a state judge.
There is no national reciprocity for operator licenses. The individual states shall determine which states to honor reciprocity with. States may offer non-resident licenses with additional fees. States are not required to allow non-residents to operate a vehicle within their state. If operating a vehicle in another state without reciprocity or a non-resident permit, if found doing so will be charged with a felony offense punishable with a minimum 3 to 5 year prison sentence if convicted.
Ban high performance vehicles. High performance vehicles with the potential to reach sustained speeds exceeding 55 miles per hour and containing 3 or more of the following features are banned:
• Spoiler
• Air dam
• Hood scoop
• Dual exhaust
• Mag wheels
• Automatic transmission
• Mufflers
• Eight cylinder engine
• Turbocharger
• Supercharger
• Racing seats
• Roll bar/cage
• Tinted/Privacy glass
• Oversize tires
• Fender flares
First paragraph: “Guns are, in fact, already far more heavily regulated that cars.”
False.
Guns are not answerable to any Federal product safety standards, the manufacturer is better protected from civil suits, the operator does not need to be licensed, the product need not be registered, insurance is not required, etc, etc, etc.
Comments are closed.