Yes, let's...

[babylonsister]

[Squinch]

1. And have stiff penalties when they put others in danger.

[X_Digger]

2. One doesn't need a license to own a car. (Apples to apples.)

Permits for concealed carry in most states *do* cover such subjects.

[starroute]

4. But driving a car without a license is a crime

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Do you want to make using a gun without a license a crime as well?

[X_Digger]

5. Only on public roads- just as carrying concealed without a license is a crime in most states. n/t

[starroute]

20. There's a major difference though -- cars have keys and ignitions

Somebody can own a car and never take if off their own property -- but in that case, the car isn't just lying around. As long as they have the key in their own pocket, there's no way an underage child or crazy uncle can take it out on the highway and kill a few people. And because cars are expensive, they have every incentive to keep it from being misused.

Guns aren't like that. They're very portable and don't need a key to turn them on. And though a gun owner can choose to keep them in a gun safe, that's a matter of discretion -- it's not a built-in safety feature.

Your arguments seem to be leading to a conclusion that guns need some sort of built-in safety system -- such as a palm print detection mechanism that will only allow them to be fired by the registered owner. And that might not be a bad idea.

[X_Digger]

21. All new handguns sold today come with a trigger or cable lock.

Just as the car owner can leave their car unlocked, and/or leave the keys above the visor, a gun owner can choose not to use the lock.

[Igel]

3. Perhaps we can have the same for other rights that have the potential for harm.

Before you can speak in public, you must demonstrate knowledge of the effects of hate speech, fighting words, and speech that can cause harm, as well as the ability to judge when to abstain from speaking.

Before you can have a press not subject to censorship, you must show that you can use it wisely and soundly, not to turn people against others or to propagate falsehood. (We'll leave aside who, exactly, would sit in judgment of press owners and what *their* qualifications would have to be.)

Before you can vote in a public election, you must demonstrate adequate knowledge of the issues at hand at the level that you intend to vote (federal, state, county or other local) as well as the consequences of the possible votes, show that you are familiar with the equipment, and have something riding on the results (to ensure that the outcome is something that you have to consider earnestly).

Sound good? I mean, we don't want people to be misusing their rights in ways that might harm others. If a armed crazy can kill 30, think of what a seditionist firebrand can do--he can produce effects much worse than just the death of 30 kids, and if he has a press then the effect is just that much worse. And mis-voting can hurt tens of thousands of people, often the weakest in society.


If you want to drive a car, there is no test. No need at all to demonstrate knowledge of safe driving practices. I've known kids who were driving when they were 12 and 13, without ever having had a single lesson from anybody other than their father. It was perfectly legal and necessary for their fulfilling their role in the family. Of course, they couldn't drive on public roads, at least not legally (and not safely, either). For the exercise of that *privilege* there are rules and regulations and tests. Let's not continue to confuse "right"--like voting--with "privilege". Americans already have a limited enough, ambiguous vocabulary. Making it fuzzier just makes it harder to communicate much of anything.

[baldguy]

13. More responsibility-free, pro-criminal propaganda from the RW NRA.

Thankfully, Americans are finally catching on to the real damage such extremists do to our society, and the majority now support measures as in the OP to force responsibility onto the gun nutters.

[patrice]

17. K&R for "pro-criminal".

[patrice]

16. Speaking is not shooting. Publishing is not shooting. Voting is not shooting. wow . . .

The legal limits of a right stop where it violates the rights of others.

The Constitution does not establish absolutely unlimited rights; there are conditions. Those conditions are determined by how your right to whatever can limit other people's right to something else.

To say the limiting conditions associated with free speech, or publishing, or voting, or driving are identical to the limiting conditions associated with a right to own and use a gun is so completely absurd that I'm forced to consider your post as possible sarcasm.

You have probably heard of false equivalence; you should consider what it means.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. oops, I didn't read your post before posting mine.

Seriously, talk about rw scripts.

Typical too; arrogant and condescending as if he knows The Laws Of The Land (wave flag here) better than anyone in the world!!!!!!!!


And he's gonna use ridiculous comparisons to confuse the meanings of Rights vs Privileges to benefit his own interests--- and then accuse gun sanity advocates of being confused about the meanings. Such a clever boy.

[patrice]

25. Keyboards may come attached to a processor, but that's not the same thing as a brain or the ability

to use it to do much more than the mechanical processes associated with typing, but what's galling about that kind of post is that it is possible that someone got paid for it . . . . while, folks, such as I am, are OUT of consideration for paychecks, because we're too old and/or too Liberal, thank Right-to-Work and "At will" employment for that, which will, likely, come back to bite such posters whether they ever believed what they post here or not.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. that is the most ridiculous display of false equivalence I've seen in a long time.

And you put a lot of effort and words into it, too.

Still, signifies nothing.

[Cha]

6. What a sweetie.. Reagan

did a couple of Good things.

thanks babylonsistah!

[sheshe2]

9. I love Ron,

I always perk up when I see him on MSNBC!

Cha,

[Cha]

11. Don't have tv so I just got a good

fix, of Ronnie!

she !

[Jumpin Jack Fletch]

7. K&R

[freshwest]

8. Add liability insurance to curb foolishness. Please, please.

[sheshe2]

10. Kick and Rec!

[Zax2me]

12. And COMPLETE background checks.

NO loopholes.

[patrice]

14. How about a non-binding video game test in which they have to make decisions about when, how, whom

to shoot?

Just a little perk for getting themselves properly licensed.

[patrice]

15. Help me out? Can anyone think of anything I don't like about Ron Reagan?

He's probably not Left enough, democratic socialist enough, for me on basic economics, right?

[tavalon]

18. That sounds completely reasonable to me

[apocalypsehow]

19. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[krispos42]

22. That is entirely reasonable for concealed-carry licensees

For they carry in public.

[Martin Eden]

26. What a radical idea!!!

But why is considered radical instead of basic common sense??!!!