No, seriously: We can register our cars but not our guns?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Note in advance: I abhor the "Guns = Cars" false analogy put out by the NRA and other gun lobbying groups and gun enthusiasts. You know, how more people die in traffic accidents annually than as a result of gun violence, yada yada yada. Never mind that most automobile deaths are accidental, while most gun deaths are intentional. Never mind that a car was designed with a specific purpose of transportation, whereas a gun is designed to kill, injure or to simulate killing/injuring. It's a dumb, easily refutable talking point.

That being said, the argument being pushed by some of the more paranoid gun enthusiasts is that if gun owners are forced to register their weapons, it would simply give an excuse for the government to know how many weapons a person has and that they could then easily seize them and--I don't know--be oppressive and tyrannical and such.

Now, I don't own any guns. I do, however, own a car. And I know that in order for me to drive that car, I have to have it registered and pay an annual fee for the license plate and such. And I do so, without a second thought or fear.

Now tell me, is there anyone--besides a completely irrational lunatic--who thinks that the government requires us to register our cars so that in the event that the government wishes to be tyrannical and oppressive, they can send their agents over to my house and take my car so that I cannot go anywhere easily? Anyone at all?

Heck, even if someone gets a DUI, their license may be suspended but the government doesn't actually seize their car (at least not in any jurisdiction to what I'm aware.)

You gun enthusiasts want to make piss-poor analogies comparing gun deaths to car deaths? Fine. Just don't oppose having to register your gun like we all have to register our cars.

[aikoaiko]

1. I don't think you don't have to register cars if they are on private property...

That goes for any car owned and used on private property. Formula 1 race cars are an example. Also, I used to live on a farm where we had jalopies that weren't registered.

Would you be ok if any firearm could be unregistered if it were kept on private property?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Given that my driveway is all of 30 feet long....

....keeping it solely on private property wouldn't do much good. I mean, I guess if I'm really really really lazy and don't want to walk out to get the mail or newspaper but....

No, but seriously, over 99.9%+ cars that are operative are driven on some public roadway on a daily basis. A scant few of us actually have Formula One race cars.

So I don't see "cars being only kept on private property" as a good analogy, given the rarity of such vehicles. Plus, it should be noted that just because someone doesn't have a concealed permit for their gun doesn't necessarily mean it won't leave the house. People take their guns out of their homes to shooting ranges. In my state, it is legal to keep your gun in your car even without a concealed permit.

[beevul]

7. Its still an apples vs oranges comparison.

Basic ownership vs usage in public.

Surely you weren't thinking that registered guns could or should be allowed to be be lawfully carried.

[Drale]

2. Not to mention that Car Companies

put millions of dollars a year into research to make cars safer, but the only idea I've ever heard about making guns safer is using a computer in the gun to make it so only the owner can fire it but I'm guessing that never got very far.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. State law, not Fed law, determines when automobiles and firearms are required to be registered.

Whether you or anyone else to register a firearm depends upon the State in which your reside.

No Federal law controls the registration of automobiles. If a Federal law were adopted to require the registration of automobiles, that would not reduce drunk drive, reckless driving, or the use of automobiles for transportation for armed robberies and other criminal activities. Such registration would be unrelated to that.

If you reside in a State which does not required the registration of firearms, and if you are unhappy with that, contact your local politicians. What's preventing you from doing that?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Some places will seize your car if they find a roach in it, and...

if you're caught drunk they'll tow it and sell it if you can't pay the storage charges.

But the real issue is that guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution while cars are not.

(Nor is pot, btw, which is why they can seize your car if they find any in it.)

[petronius]

6. You've put your finger on the crux of the difference, I think:

Now tell me, is there anyone--besides a completely irrational lunatic--who thinks that the government requires us to register our cars so that in the event that the government wishes to be tyrannical and oppressive, they can send their agents over to my house and take my car so that I cannot go anywhere easily? Anyone at all?

Nobody could possibly believe that vehicle registration has ever been or will ever be motivated - even in part - by a desire to reduce, limit, eliminate or simply make more difficult/expensive the act of car ownership. Knowing what you know about the general discussion on gun control/RKBA, can you make a similarly comprehensive statement about the push for firearms registration?

I can see the potential benefits of registration in terms of helping ensure that background checks are completed and identifying gun owners who later become disqualified; I'd be less skeptical of pushes for gun registration if they included some serious protections against misuse of subsequent alteration of the law (for example, strict privacy controls, a tightly defined list of ways in which a registry could be used/accessed, and a guarantee that no registered firearm or class of firearms would subsequently be banned or further restricted...)

[jmg257]

8. Makes you realize how times have changed since the 2nd was added to the constitution.

The people, the states, the founders &c. made great efforts to make sure the people couldn't be disarmed by the central govt.

Of course that primary purpose for the 2nd is obsolete:
No more state militias.
Huge standing army.
Federally controlled and armed select militia.


After 200 years, there is now apparently no chance of it ever happening.

We the people sure have come a long way in being able to rely on and trust our federal govt.