Why registering guns is not the same as registering cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't ride a bicycle or walk along a freeway.

Just exactly when did this become a "privilege" to travel by a means other than a bicycle or on foot?
Cyclists and pedestrians don't have to pay gas tax for the maintenance of those freeways, and that's an aside from being too slow to keep up with the motorized traffic.

If driving on public roads were a Right, there would be no requirement for driver's licenses or insurance.
 
Cyclists and pedestrians don't have to pay gas tax for the maintenance of those freeways, and that's an aside from being too slow to keep up with the motorized traffic.

If driving on public roads were a Right, there would be no requirement for driver's licenses or insurance.
Since when did paying a tax determine your right to freely travel? If I drive a Tesla luxury car on a freeway or on any other public road I am not paying a gas tax.

Pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc do not have to keep up with motorized vehicles. There is ample room on nearly every freeway, major highway etc for a lane or two of non motorized traffic.

So we have had drivers licenses imposed and insurance imposed since motor vehicles were first available? Was the right to travel a tangible right at that time?

So again, when exactly did it become a privilege? If you can justify travel as a privilege you can justify gun ownership as a privilege as well - impose registration, insurance and extra taxation.
 
Last edited:
Since when did paying a tax determine your right to freely travel? If I drive a Tesla luxury car on a freeway or on any other public road I am not paying a gas tax.

Pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc do not have to keep up with motorized vehicles. There is ample room on nearly every freeway, major highway etc for a lane or two of non motorized traffic.

So we have had drivers licenses imposed and insurance imposed since motor vehicles were first available? Was the right to travel a tangible right at that time?

So again, when exactly did it become a privilege? If you can justify travel as a privilege you can justify gun ownership as a privilege as well - impose registration, insurance and extra taxation.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, not a privilege. There's obviously nothing in the Constitution conferring the right to a drivers license since they were not in existence at that time and I'm not aware of an amendment to the Constitution adding it as a right. Travelling and having a driver's license are two different issues. Finally, having ample room on a freeway does not mean you can ride your bike or walk on it, and doing so on major highways is not allowed.
 
The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, not a privilege. There's obviously nothing in the Constitution conferring the right to a drivers license since they were not in existence at that time and I'm not aware of an amendment to the Constitution adding it as a right. Travelling and having a driver's license are two different issues. Finally, having ample room on a freeway does not mean you can ride your bike or walk on it, and doing so on major highways is not allowed.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows government to license any private activity. If you go through some gymnastics to say, oh yes they can, then the same gymnastics can be applied to say the government can require licencing, registration, taxation and mandatory insurance on the private use of any firearm. Since it does not deny you your right, it simply makes some reasonable controls.

There is no such thing as a "right" to a license, because a license is permission. Permission is not something anyone would desire for private activity, such as travelling freely using the most practical personal forms of self transportation.

There were no licenses back then because to the unprogrammed population the idea of having to get a licence - permission - for private non commercial activity would have been preposterous.

The fact that walking or riding a bicycle, or a horse, alongside a highway is "not allowed" is stating the obvious. It does not address the principle of the right to travel .
 
Last edited:
Your confusing mode of travel with freedom of movement. If they were the same thing your Rights would be infringed upon by the oil companies. How dare they charge you for gasoline---especially if you don't have the money to pay them so you can exercise your Right to free movement, LOL!
 
The only time it consumes a public resource is if it is used for hunting, and for which there is a state-issued license fee already (again, NOT FEDERAL).

You must not be a hunter.

There are federal laws regulating hunting and there are fees paid to hunt in the form of federal stamps
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/us-migratory-migratory-bird-hunting-and-conservation-stamp-act.

As was pointed out I think you may be confusing mode of transportation with freedom of movement. I don't think anyone has ever thought that driving a car was a constitutional right. At least I've never heard anyone say that.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Driving a car may not be a constitutional right but moving about the country is.

I guess I'm just missing your point.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Your confusing mode of travel with freedom of movement. If they were the same thing your Rights would be infringed upon by the oil companies. How dare they charge you for gasoline---especially if you don't have the money to pay them so you can exercise your Right to free movement, LOL!
I can convert a car to run on propane which will cut oil companies out of the picture - and the gas tax.
 
You must not be a hunter.

There are federal laws regulating hunting and there are fees paid to hunt in the form of federal stamps
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/us-migratory-migratory-bird-hunting-and-conservation-stamp-act.

As was pointed out I think you may be confusing mode of transportation with freedom of movement. I don't think anyone has ever thought that driving a car was a constitutional right. At least I've never heard anyone say that.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Driving a car may not be a constitutional right but moving about the country is.

I guess I'm just missing your point.:confused:
And exactly how did most people travel to exercise that freedom of movement in 1823? A horse? Horse and cart?

If an AR-15, an AK etc is the modern form of an 1823 musket - what is the modern form of the horse[and cart]?
 
And exactly how did most people travel to exercise that freedom of movement in 1823? A horse? Horse and cart?

If an AR-15, an AK etc is the modern form of an 1823 musket - what is the modern form of the horse[and cart]?
Planes, trains, busses, canoes, dog sled, mule team, ferries. You pay for the fare and away you go. You can even carve your own canoe if you wish. In Alaska a Super Cub on floats will take you far more places than a car (therefor you're freer to move around,) but no one has a Right to fly a Super Cub---relatively few (in comparison) have been checked out on these ships and ignorance is fatal.
In Manhattan the subway will get you around town more efficiently than a car, but if you think you have a Right to sneak through the gate without a ticket a "nice" Transit Authority officer will set you straight rather quickly.
But you can walk all you wish in either territory, that is your Right.
 
If an AR-15, an AK etc is the modern form of an 1823 musket - what is the modern form of the horse[and cart]?

You got me there. That has to be the automobile. I've driven coast to coast a few times without any problems but I could have traveled the same distance on a bicycle or taken a train or a plane. The mode of transportation doesn't matter.

But I can't drive the whole distance at 90 mph. The states regulate that just like they regulated the toll roads in 1823. Just like they regulate AR's and AK's now. Modern doesn't much matter much when it comes to vehicles or firearms.
 
Last edited:
You got me there. That has to be the an automobile. I've driven coast to coast a few time without any problems but I could have traveled the same distance on a bicycle or taken a train or a plane. The mode of transportation doesn't matter.

But I can't drive the whole distance at 90 mph. The states regulate that just like they regulated the toll roads in 1823. Just like they regulate AR's and AK's now. Modern doesn't much matter, does it?
Yes and no. There was hardly ANY on any type of firearm, or travel compared to now. If you'd written a book called "1894" Orwell style in 1823 and depicted the sort of personal property registration and other "requirements" there are now applied to 1823 guns, and modes of private transport you would have been labeled a nutcase.
 
and modes of private transport you would have been labeled a nutcase.

Imagine how much easier stage coach robberies would have been if they had to transport their gun unloaded and in a locked container. It would have made the gun little more than extra booty for robbers and done more to encourage robberies than not having the gun at all. Now that is the legal method of transport through multiple states under FOPA.
Just knowing a stage coach was using FOPA transport would have made criminals want to attack that coach more than other coaches, because you would get free firearms that posed no risk to you in addition to other spoils!

I think people from those times would be more convinced of how nuts the modern world was just driving someplace, that they wouldn't even have time to notice the gun laws. Rural roads out here with typical 55 MPH speed limits generally have people all going 65+, often less than a foot away from people going the same speed in the opposite direction, around windy corners. The highways travel around 75+ and they can't be bothered to go more than 10-15 mph slower when they get onto long rural roads.
Anyone that makes a mistake for even a second is likely to kill most of the people in both vehicles when they collide head on. While they talk, check the texts on their phone, and adjust their radio or other devices and eat food. Coming from a time when people had more space than that between horses going much slower they would be convinced how stupid the present is that you can just randomly die in a split second without seeing it coming from such a mundane activity that most people are required to take part in every day as part of our society.

It is in fact no wonder significantly more people die or are seriously wounded or disabled in transit today than are by guns. While most killed and injured by guns are in lifestyles they choose to be in that involve gang lifestyles and drug trading, while most wounded or killed in transport are just trying to get someplace.
How many died in normal transport back then? I guess you could die in a ship wreck crossing an entire ocean, but I doubt many died going between towns because of horse or carriage accidents.
However I do believe the murder rate was much higher back then, so gun violence was a much bigger risk back then and dying on your way to work a much lower risk.
Ironically today guess which one they want to restrict more and which one the media would have you believe poses the bigger risk?
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. There was hardly ANY on any type of firearm, or travel compared to now. If you'd written a book called "1894" Orwell style in 1823 and depicted the sort of personal property registration and other "requirements" there are now applied to 1823 guns, and modes of private transport you would have been labeled a nutcase.

True, and if you had said in 1823 that people would be walking on the moon in 1969 I doubt you would have be taken seriously.

The point is governments evolve because people who elect the legislators evolve. Firearms have become regulated by states just like automobiles. If they are going to be regulated, I much prefer that to any more federal regulation.
 
I just came into the tail end of this discussion; but I saw a few things that stood out.

You can't ride a bicycle or walk along a freeway.

This is very dependent on where you are. For example, when I lived in Northern California I frequently rode my bicycle on Interstate 5. There are the occasional signs that state that bicycles must use the next exit. In general, I found the interstate section easier, and much safer, to ride than the alternative roads. In Oregon it is normal to see people riding or walking on Interstate 5. It just depends on where you are

Cyclists and pedestrians don't have to pay gas tax for the maintenance of those freeways, . . .

That is a truth that conceals an untruth. To make that statement complete you would need to add that taxes on motor fuel provide less than half of the funds needed for repair and maintenance of roads, and almost none of the funds needed for expansion. With that out of the way, people, without regard to means of locomotion, pay for those activated through a variety of other taxes, be it sales, income, property, or some other mechanism.

Here is an article outlining road costs and who pays them. These bullet points are from the article:
Roads don’t pay for themselves.

  • Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.
  • Roads pay for themselves less and less over time. In the 1960s and early 1970s, gas taxes and other fees on drivers covered more than 70 percent of the costs of highway construction and maintenance. The share of transportation costs covered by gasoline taxes is likely to continue to decline as a result of inflation, more fuel-efficient cars, and slower growth in driving.
All of us bear the costs of roads.

  • Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving. Including:
    • An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair.
    • Between $199 and $675 per household per year in additional tax subsidies for driving, such as the sales tax exemption for gasoline purchases in many states and the federal income tax exclusion for commuter parking benefits.
    • An estimated $216 per year in government expenditures made necessary by vehicle crashes, not counting additional, uncompensated damages to victims and property.
    • Approximately $93 to $360 per household in costs related to air pollution-induced health damage.
Governments spend more non-user tax dollars on highways than on transit, bicycling, walking and passenger rail travel, combined.

  • Transit ($43.3 billion in government capital and operating funding), bicycling and pedestrian programs ($821 million in federal funding), and passenger rail ($1.8 billion in government funding) all receive less direct taxpayer support than highways.
People who walk and bicycle pay their fair share for use of the transportation system.

  • Most walking and bicycling takes place on local streets and roads that are primarily paid for through property taxes and other general local taxes.
  • Walking and bicycling inflict virtually no damage on roads and streets, and take up only a tiny fraction of the road space occupied by vehicles. Bicyclists and pedestrians likely pay far more in general taxes to facilitate the use of local roads and streets by drivers than they receive in benefits from state and federal infrastructure investment paid for through the gas tax.
Americans lead increasingly multi-modal lives. Most are not “drivers” or “non-drivers” but people who use a variety of modes and pay for transportation in a variety of ways.

  • Roughly two-thirds of American drivers also bicycle, walk or use public transit during the course of a given week, with young people more likely to be multimodal than older generations.
  • Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe it is appropriate to use gasoline tax revenue to support public transportation. And several recent opinion polls suggest that Americans believe that the nation should give greater priority to transit, bicycling and walking in transportation spending.
Back to the point made at the beginning of this thread. You make a good point about the difference being that full use of autos relies on the use of public resources. I am concerned with that point because of the desire to push all firearms related "costs" (i.e. criminal behaviour) onto lawful gun owners while refusing to examine and calculate the public benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
I just came into the tail end of this discussion; but I saw a few things that stood out.



This is very dependent on where you are. For example, when I lived in Northern California I frequently rode my bicycle on Interstate 5. There are the occasional signs that state that bicycles must use the next exit. In general, I found the interstate section easier, and much safer, to ride than the alternative roads. In Oregon it is normal to see people riding or walking on Interstate 5. It just depends on where you are



That is a truth that conceals an untruth. To make that statement complete you would need to add that taxes on motor fuel provide less than half of the funds needed for repair and maintenance of roads, and almost none of the funds needed for expansion. With that out of the way, people, without regard to means of locomotion, pay for those activated through a variety of other taxes, be it sales, income, property, or some other mechanism.

Here is an article outlining road costs and who pays them. These bullet points are from the article:

Back to the point made at the beginning of this thread. You make a good point about the difference being that full use of autos relies on the use of public resources. I am concerned with that point because of the desire to push all firearms related "costs" (i.e. criminal behaviour) onto lawful gun owners while refusing to examine and calculate the public benefit.

Everyone benefits from the transportation of passage goods over highways. That doesn't mean they have a Right use those highways to move about freely without the Privilege to do so.
Greyhound pays fees and taxes to the government to operate it's service. Buy a ticket and Greyhound sells you the Privilege to ride. The Privilege doesn't come from the government.

The proposals costing gun owners exorbitant amounts is a thinly veiled prohibitive tax which, since bearing arms is a Right, should not be tolerated any more than a tax on public speaking, or walking, or voting.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned. I have not read through all of the posts. The goal of registration is confiscation if government wasn't interested in having the ability to confiscate guns they would have used this system instead:http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm In this article there is also a link to the actual paper on BIDS.
 
The proposals costing gun owners exorbitant amounts is a thinly veiled prohibitive tax which, since bearing arms is a Right, should not be tolerated any more than a tax on public speaking, or walking, or voting.

In this point we are in strong agreement. This is why I often appear to be opposed to training requirements for Firearm owners. I am strongly in favor of taking advantage of training opportunities. However, training requirements have been used as a way of denying rights, particularly to the poor.

I mentioned this on another forum when the issue of mandatory training came up:
The concern that some voice about training is legitimate. In the past "training" was used as a barrier. This barrier was created when the training was not appropriate or accessible.

An example of inappropriate was given to me by a retired peace officer. He was quite proud of the test required for a CCW in the city he worked in. Candidates had to run an obstacle course, that was quite challenging by the description, and stop at various stations on the course and shoot. The activity was timed and the people being tested had to shoot full loads for the gun being used (e.g. .357 instead of .38spec., .44mag instead of .44spec).

Accessibility has also been used as a barrier. In the 1970's, when my father applied for his permit in El Monte, as suburb of Los Angeles, he was told that the "class" cost $2000 In that case he asked a member of the county board of supervisors to make a call for him, and the fee was waived. However, in a large county, the ability to have a member of the board of supervisors make a call is a barrier. Other means that have been used are classes that are all but impossible to get to, or complete.

As you have see in my previous posts, I am not in opposition to training. In fact, as you have seen in this thread, I have stated that armed teachers should have appropriate and accessible training. Toward that I have signed up for a seven week course, for teachers, put on by the Sheriff's department. There is a long waiting list for that class, as such, I won't be able to provide any meaningful review until next fall. I will say that a waiting list that long bumps against "availability."

So, again, I am in favor of taking advantage of training opportunities. However, I become much more apprehensive and seek the details when someone says mandatory.

It comes down to, is the training creating a regulated (Meaning: in good working order) populace, or is it being used as a barrier.

I think you will find that, on this issue, we are in agreement, not opposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
In the good old days Turnpikes were privately owned and operated. Pay the toll and the operator raised the gate and you were able to travel the private road.
Now that the state has taken over you see how well those Turnpikes are maintained. Many residents of PA can attest to the state of the potholes.
 
In the good old days Turnpikes were privately owned and operated. Pay the toll and the operator raised the gate and you were able to travel the private road.
Now that the state has taken over you see how well those Turnpikes are maintained. Many residents of PA can attest to the state of the potholes.

This really isn't a private vs. public ownership issue. It is an issue of barriers to ownership. It would be onerous no matter if it were done directly by a state body or if it was outsourced. It is likely that a agency devoted to the registration of firearms would be even harder to deal with it it were a profit seeking organization. However, discussing whether a private, or public body would be a better model for a firearms registration is a bit of a red herring. The point is that any registration model would restrict, otherwise qualified, people from firearm ownership and would create many accidental felons.

Even if it were just like registering a car, most of the registration schemes have been nothing like car registration. You can loan a car for an indefinite period if you choose to. In restrictive states this is not true of firearms.

However, even this deflects from the point. The point being that firearms and automobiles are very different in their use. A firearm does not "consume" public resources in its normal, and lawful use. An auto does "consume" public resources in its normal, and lawful use. They are not similar, and as the OP says, the "just like auto registration" reasoning does not hold up to examination.
 
You posted your argument and the associated video on a site that is, in effect, an echo chamber. Nobody here seriously disagrees with your premise, so what's the point? Try posting this on a few pro-gun control sites; I'm sure they will do a very thorough job of pointing out the logical flaws in your arguments. Then, you can come back here, post the most cogent of those arguments and seek some assistance in refuting them.
The point is to arm like-minded people with arguments and ideas that they can take with them as they go to other forums and talk to other people.
Your assumption that like-minded people are incapable of finding logical flaws in a discussion is one I disagree with.
Have you ever talked to the anti-2A crowd? Their core beliefs are different from ours. And they believe anything. They do not understand the value of 2A and RKBA. We all need to be armed with sound arguments and facts.
The ones on here that are pro-RKBA that is.
:)
 
My question is at what point will the majority of American gun owners say "NO"? The current political climate, politicalization of all news sources and lack of knowledge/respect of the Constitution and world history, gives me little hope for the future. The parable about "boiling a frog" comes to mind!
WE HAVE to start talking about the intellectual and deeper reasons for 2A. It is NOT catering to a bunch of hobbyists and hunters. The new generation needs to be educated on what happens to an unarmed populace that is policed by a few armed people. The results are never pretty.
:)
 
I just came into the tail end of this discussion; but I saw a few things that stood out.
.........

Here is an article outlining road costs and who pays them. These bullet points are from the article:

Back to the point made at the beginning of this thread. You make a good point about the difference being that full use of autos relies on the use of public resources. I am concerned with that point because of the desire to push all firearms related "costs" (i.e. criminal behaviour) onto lawful gun owners while refusing to examine and calculate the public benefit.
Yes, one strategy by anti-RKBA groups is to attribute a heavy public burden to gun ownership, one that requires heavy taxation and registration.
Anything to get that registry.
Once guns are registered, it's over.
:)
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned. I have not read through all of the posts. The goal of registration is confiscation if government wasn't interested in having the ability to confiscate guns they would have used this system instead:http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm In this article there is also a link to the actual paper on BIDS.
If only someone would point out that blockchain technology could preserve all transaction records while making it impossible for the government to compile a registry or database of gun owners.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top