And Nobody Cried: "They Are Trying To Take Away My Car"

[kpete]

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/01/12/youtube-gun-celebrity-watch/#comment-4130823

[yardwork]

1. Why indeed?

[aikoaiko]

2. That's because no one was talking about banning cars with racing wheels.

Or flames painted on the side.

[liberal N proud]

3. You can paint flames on the side of your gun

That's not the problem.

[Rex]

5. YEP.

.

[aikoaiko]

32. how about a bayonet lug without a bayonet?

[Chorophyll]

18. This.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. I love how someone claims assault rifles are just "decorations"....

The claim is that these two are the same:



Problem is, one of them gives a gun nut wood,...and it ain't the one with wood.

[petronius]

27. Whether it's guns or cars or anything else, giving people 'wood' is not any form of problem

that requires policy intervention. Function is what matters, not fashion...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. As far as "function" goes...

These idiots buy the AR-15 out of fear of a firefight with authority.

And just think about that for a sec.

Say they were in their bunker of a home and actually managed to shoot and kill every guy in uniform coming to arrest them.

What do they imagine will happen next?

Do they REALLY believe that America will hail them as a hero as they stroll over all the bloody corpses of dead ATF agents?

[siligut]

40. Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell them what will happen next

So they have no idea. I am guessing the scenario is armageddon in general, no specifics. Just be sure to have more guns and ammo than the other guy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. The funny thing is these guys are the zombies they're waiting for.

[freshwest]

44. Only the most radical minority believe that - but, yes, that's what it's about.

I've argued this with the 'revolution' and 'rebel' types for years. We've all paid with our taxes to create the most technically advanced military, which they used to brag about, when Bush was POTUS, on the face of the planet. There is no real competition, and they know that.

When they remember that factoid, they go to the 'American Revolution was won by beating the British using guerilla warfare, and that's how we'll protect our families.'

When confronted with the fact we were fighting what Americans had been coming to see to as a colonial power interfering with us, they automatically transfer the argument to the Federal government and Confederate drivel about states' rights and oppression, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, they do want to walk over the dead bodies of government agents. Weird that a lot of them are termites, their training was by that same government. Now they say the government tricked them into going to war abroad, so they will right to fight here.

It's convoluted, because you can't get them to admit how great it all was with Bush in charge, when they were proud and gung ho. Take tha, and it's because of 'gays, commies' or God says so. Hopefully some find daylight and join the rest of us, even if they have different solutions to national problems.

But only if they turn off Beck, Rush, etc. Not likely anytime soon.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. They LIKE the idea of the government targeting Liberals when they're in charge....

They just ASSUME the government will target them when Liberals are in charge.

Doesn't matter how many articles there are out there of the government CONTINUING to target Liberals under Democrats, nor the whole "Kick the Hippie" mindset of the Washington Villagers, the dumbass rednecks live in terror that being an asshole will be against the law.

[sakabatou]

20. If by racing wheels you mean slick wheels, those are illegal on the street.

[aikoaiko]

31. Wheels are 'rims'. Slicks are tires.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. There were a number of car magazines in the 60's and 70's that whined

They were a rich source of articles that opposed anything that might reduce performance or add a few dollars to the cost.

But they didn't go the extremes that the gun lobby does.

[Robb]

6. High capacity car magazines?

[ThoughtCriminal]

8. Sort of like that

but substitute engines for magazine size an rate of fire.

These days the editorial slant of magazines like "Car and Driver" is climate change denial.

[Recursion]

7. Nobody tried to take away cars, or ban cars with "sports car features"

You could still buy a car with a spoiler.

[ThoughtCriminal]

11. Depends on the "Feature"

there are regulations that make the car safer and restrict who can drive them.

[cartach]

24. Spoilers

were a useless decoration and nothing else. Fakery.

[Recursion]

26. That's my point (nt)

[krispos42]

9. Because there are very few accidental gun deaths per year

It's false equivalency. Guns do not go off by themselves. They are not so badly made that normal use makes them explode and injure bystanders.

They are used as tools to commit crime.




Cars are used to enable criminals to escape. Therefore, people can't own cars.

[ThoughtCriminal]

10. Actually

600+ per year. Not what I would call few, but that too is an invalid comparison since hundreds of millions of people use cars every day. Extremely few people use a gun for hours a day, every day - even police.

Like automobiles, regulations could make guns safer and reduce criminal use. The "Therefore people can't own cars" is the absurdity that the OP points out.

[Buzz Clik]

22. If people spent as much time with a gun in their hands as they do driving their vehicles...

... accidental gun deaths would be 100 times higher.

[Straw Man]

30. Carrying a gun is "using" it.

Many, many people carry a gun for hours a day.

[ThoughtCriminal]

34. Just like

I''m "Using" a computer when it's turned off or using a car parked in the garage. The comparison would be handling/shooting a gun vs driving.

[Straw Man]

37. One way to look at it.

The comparison would be handling/shooting a gun vs driving.

The other way to look at it is that when the pistol is in my pocket, it is doing its job of protecting me, just like a fire extinguisher achieves its purpose merely hanging on the wall.

I see your point, but I also think that if all gun owners spent as much time handling/shooting their firearms as they do driving their cars, they would be a lot better and safer at it.

[ThoughtCriminal]

41. Hopefully they would

But then, I think about the video of the DEA agent shooting himself in the foot. I won't post again it here - I think that's been done a few hundred times in the last few weeks.

I suspect most drivers get do get better with experience, those who don't become statistics or make them. It's probably the same with guns. And then, some people never learn...

[cthulu2016]

12. Perhaps because nobody was trying to take their car.

The analogy fails on guns are getting so bad that it is all I can do to retain my life-long support for gun control in the face of them.

[frylock]

15. who is taking your gun?

[cthulu2016]

17. I don't have a gun, so your question is very foolish

[frylock]

19. as was your post i responded to..

i'll play. who is taking away other people's guns?

[Straw Man]

29. Disingenuous much?

You can regulate something out of existence without actually confiscating it. Case in point: I own a Colt Pocket Pistol that was made in 1913. It is a semi-automatic with a magazine that holds eight rounds. The governor of my state is pushing a magazine capacity limit of seven rounds for all semi-automatics. Since I seriously doubt that any manufacturer is going to step up to produce a magazine for a pistol that has been out of production since 1945, my hundred-year-old pistol will then be totally useless. I can always put it in a case and look at it -- without the magazine, of course, which will have to be sold out-of-state, turned in, or destroyed -- but I can never fire it again. Call me crazy, but I enjoy shooting a firearm that was produced before the First World War. No, there won't be any jackbooted storm troopers breaking down my front door to take away my relic pistol, but since I intend to comply with the law, I will probably just sell it anyway rather than keeping it around to taunt me with the memories of what freedom used to taste like.

Yeah, I know, boo-fucking-hoo. But I challenge you to tell me how this makes the world any safer.

[frylock]

33. buy your spare mags prior to any new legislation..

problem solved.

[Straw Man]

36. Not really.

buy your spare mags prior to any new legislation..

problem solved.

The Gov wants no grandfathering. That means that even the 100-year-old magazine that is original to the pistol would have to be turned in or become contraband. No, I'd rather sell the whole thing intact, legally, to someone out-of-state.

[Silver Swan]

14. I do recall that many people

refused to wear seatbelts. Even now, that seat belt use is a law in may states, there are people who refuse under some idea of losing "freedom."

There are also people who resent laws that require having headlights on when windshield wipers are in use, because they don't want the "government" telling them what to do.

I can't help feeling that these populations have at least some overlap with those who are afraid of losing their guns.

[ThoughtCriminal]

25. Rep. Helen Chenoweth

"Black Helicopter" Republican

Died for her "Cause".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Chenoweth-Hage#Later_life_and_death

[cantbeserious]

16. Why - Because Of That Damned 2nd Amendment And The SCOTUS Unwilling To Take On The NRA

eom

[Buzz Clik]

21. A lot of proposals out there DO suggest elimination of some forms of gun ownership.

Assault weapons ban, e.g.

And do you not recall the screaming that happened when it was suggested that SUVs be considered cars (not trucks) when developing CAFE standards?

Conservatives, by their very definition, despise change of any kind, even if change is clearly in their best interest.

[LibDemAlways]

23. Because gun nuts are irrational. I post on another

basically non-political board for people who grew up in the same area as me. One guy who posts there is convinced he needs a bunch of guns to protect himself from the government. When I pointed out that his guns would be useless against the combined forces of the US Military and asked what "well-regulated militia" he belongs to, he had no comeback. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with these people who steadfastly refuse to use whatever brainpower they possess.

[sarisataka]

28. Yet we have cars that can go in excess of 80mph

wich is the highest speed limit except for a couple counties in Texas.
Increasing the speed limits from 55mph has increased deaths by 3.2%. We could eliminate ~5000 deaths and injuries per year by reducing the speed limit. Since no one needs to speed, restrict cars from being able to go more than 10% above the limit. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/articles/2009/07/16/deaths-injuries-increase-with-higher-speed-limits

This would also resolve the issue of police high-speed chases. If no one can travel at high speed there can be no high speed chases.


Notice I am not asking to ban cars, just have reasonable restrictions. I think this idea is a start.

[Initech]

38. And gun nuts think my Nissan Altima is deadlier than an AR-15.

[Taitertots]

39. You can still buy a 650 horsepower GT500 that can go over 200mph

Hell, if you could afford it you could buy a 1200 horsepower Veyron Grand sport Vitesse. AND all the previous cars remained legal to own, drive, and sell.

[Honeycombe8]

42. That's because no one WAS trying to ban cars. And there were plenty of complaints about seat belts.

Seat belts and some other safety features were the result of pressures from the INS. COS.,not govt.

Have you noticed the awful new headrests now required in cars? Honda is the worst....I simply can't drive with them, they are so forward of the seat back that it pushes my head into a downward tilt. Other manufacturers' headrests are not as intrusive, but they're all bad. The reason for the new law is INS. COS., primarily State Farm.

Hell, they might as well just go ahead and make us wear a getup like Hannibal Lector while driving. Sure, it'd be restrictive & uncomfortable, but it would result in a lot fewer bodily injuries for State Farm to pay for.