Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!

[Pizzapinochle]

I think usually the car discussion comes up when a pro-gun person posts something like...

"Cars kill more people than guns! Why don't you try and ban CARS!!!"

or something equally irrelevant.

This leads to a pro-gun-control person saying:

"Yes, but we register cars and you have to have a driver's license to drive it!"

And that conversation procedes to have nothing to do with a discussion on gun control/2a rights.

It would be best if BOTH sides got rid of the irrelevant and distracting noise that gets put out by pro/anti advocates on either end.

 

[Ogre One]

Any restrictions on firearm ownership is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Driving should be a right but we have allowed the state to classify it as a privledge giving them more control over our lives.

The initial post that started this thread is great. I consider myself sufficiently chastised.

As for "right" vs "privilege", my oldest daughter tried to use that "driving is a right" argument when she turned 16. She actually kept a learner's permit for two years because she was (and may still be to some extent) a moving road hazard. She has learned over the years that driving is indeed a "privilege" and not a "right" as she once believed.

Both situations - guns and cars - come with inherent responsibilities. Unfortunately those misguided soles in power who think legislation will control violence resulting from the improper use of each are just plain delusional. The only proven deterrent is stiffer fines for things considered minor and stronger penalties (up and including death) for major things including the loss of life.

 

[Bluelight]

Excellent post by MachIVShooter generated some good discussion. The bottom line remains that the Constitution acknowledges "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It is a major component of the document this country was founded on and, even then, did not limit that right to muskets and spears, to the exclusion of new technologies. We need to make sure to elect representatives who will truly represent our views and beliefs unlike the current group.

 

[kvtcomdo]

Driving is not a right; it is a privilege.

The 2nd Amendment is a right.

Anyone that cannot see this is not paying attention.

There is no comparison.

 

[oneounceload]

^^^ Someone gets it

 

[larryh1108]

It's not that we don't get it. We do get it. It's about the antis and the fence sitters who don't get it.

The car analogy is only there to show the ones who do not get it about something they can relate to. They antis don't care about #2. The fence sitters aren't sure what to think. Everybody drives. Take that privelage away from the soccer moms and they will scream bloody murder. It's a way to make them understand/relate because they just don't get it.

 

[PedalBiker]

I think there are a lot of similarities between the two. Both cars and guns are powerful tools. Both cars and guns are vitally important in the exercise of fundamental rights of person hood. The right to security is just as vital as the right to move freely. For many the loss of a driver's license is no better than house arrest.

While "driving" may be considered a privileged now it was not always that way. It used to be that if you had your own transportation it was you right to use it as you saw fit. Frankly I think the whole driving is a privilege thing is BS and is just conditioning to get people ready to have their cars regulated into oblivion.


Being able to move you, your possessions and your family freely used to be considered a right.

And whatever discussions you have with your 16 year old kids are irrelevant. Rights for minors is a totally different issue.

http://www.songlyrics.com/rush/red-barchetta-lyrics/


The point remains. The collective is chipping away at our rights. All of them.

 

[450 Dakota]

Yes indeed! Two very different situations in which there can be no real comparison. The comparison should actually be made to the actual permit to OPERATE the car or the gun, since it all has to do with risk to those around you. If your car is just sitting in the driveway you dont need a permit of any kind--you are using no public venues and are no risk to those around you. In the driver's license scenario, you are actually OPERATING a motor vehicle on a public roadway and potentially posing a very real risk to other drivers around you. This is the difference. If I buy and carry a gun, I pose zero risk to those around me. However, if I actually draw (operate) my gun in public, there is a certain amount of risk to any bystanders around me. The idea of insurance coverage for those who carry has always made a great deal more sense than background checks for purchases or carry permits that just amount to paying government fees, making lists of those who own and carry firearms and filling the rice bowls of CCW instructors who profit by government mandate of the training. If anything, the comparison of mandatory carrying insurance for both operating an automobile or a firearm is more sensible. Background checks, training and permits have not been shown to accomplish anything more than additional cost and bureaucracy.

 

[Bluelight]

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right

Driving an automobile is not

There is NO comparison.

Permits, background checks, and insurance requirements are only a backdoor path to registration and ultimately confiscation. As we accept more of these type restrictions and rationalize their "need", we gradually give up the actual right.

We have enough gun laws in this country, and too many state by state or city by city variations that make it confusing for even the law enforcement community to fully understand.

We also have laws against assault and murder. Enforce those laws no matter what the method used and enforce the penalty properly.

There are no new gun laws needed or acceptable. They would serve no purpose other than lead us closer to giving up that 1/10 of the Bill of Rights.

What is next one to go?
Warrantless searches of personal papers, emails, phone calls???

 

[larryh1108]

What is next one to go?
Warrantless searches of personal papers, emails, phone calls???

Seen the news lately?

 

[Lost Sheep]

2nd Amendment is NOT a right

It is a prohibition on the Federal Government.

The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed says nothing about the people, everything about the government prohibited from infringing.

One of the cardinal rules of having a debate is to agree on the terms and what they mean. If you are using terms that do not match, the debate is doomed to confusion.

Lost Sheep

 

[torqem]

Our enemies are not "confused". They know exactly what they want to do to/with us, and they know what is preventing them having things as they want them to be. If we surrender those things, we, or our children will get what always happens to weak/fools.

 

[Bluelight]

For Lost Sheep:
"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The actual wording sounds like a right of the people that is protected from the government.

The first ten amendments, which are referred to as the "Bill of Rights", are rights of the people that are explicitly protected from government interference.


Yes larryh1108, I'm afraid have seen the news.

 

[algebraman]

Likewise if I have a driving license it's valid in 50 states... so why isn't my concealed carry?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Because the States have specifically entered into an agreement to honor each others driver's licenses.

 

[Bluelight]

So now we are back to comparing a Constitutional right agreed to by all states entering the Union to a privilege granted by individual states and automatically honored by the others.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution accepted in its entirety as a requirement for becoming a state. Other issues are left as a states right according to the 10th amendment.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So now we are back to comparing a Constitutional right agreed to by all states entering the Union to a privilege granted by individual states and automatically honored by the others.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution accepted in its entirety as a requirement for becoming a state. Other issues are left as a states right according to the 10th amendment....

No. Actually you have it pretty much all wrong.

1. Drives' licenses issued by one State aren't "automatically" honored by the others. They are honored by the others because the States all specifically agreed among themselves to do so.
   
   
2. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. It applied only against the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833).
   
   
3. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights did not begin to be applied against the States until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries when the Supreme Court began to do so in a piecemeal fashion through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted in 1868) using a process now know as "incorporation."
   
   
4. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment did not apply against the States.
   
   
5. The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

You really need to educate yourself about what our history and law actually are -- not what you'd like them to be.

 

[jon_in_wv]

The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

And thank God that is a situation that was corrected. So many people felt it was an intrusion of the federal government to not allow the states to "experiment" with things like ignoring the right to keep and bear arms to help stem the tide of crime. The same people would think it would be insane if the same state and local governments just decided to ignore free speech, or the right to unreasonable search and seizure, or due process for the same reasons. While I don't see the need to incorporate an amendment that did nothing but restrict the government and didn't "grant" a right at all I do at least think it should be treated with the same respect as the other amendments.

As far as the cars analogy, I think its useful to demonstrate to people how they would feel if people's "rights" to own and operate a care were taken away as an example of how we feel if our right to keep and bear arms were taken away. The difference being of course that operating a car is not a right essential to the freedom of our people.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The same people would think it would be insane if the same state and local governments just decided to ignore free speech, or the right to unreasonable search and seizure, or due process for the same reasons...

Nonetheless, as a noted above the Supreme Court did rule in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States.

And in 1876 the Supreme Court in Cruikshank cited by me above also ruled specifically that the First Amendment did not apply to the States (as well as the Second Amendment).

Of course much of that has been remedied by application of the Fourteenth Amendment through the use of the doctrine of incorporation. A number of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated against the States or have been ruled not to apply against the States:

• Third Amendment: The right not to be compelled to quarter soldiers has been specifically incorporated only in the Second Circuit. It appears that the has been no other ruling on that question.
  
  
• Fifth Amendment: The right to indictment by a grand jury has been specifically not incorporated (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)).
  
  
• Sixth Amendment: The right in a criminal trial to a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred has not been incorporated (Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980)).
  
  
• Seventh Amendment: The right to a jury trial in a civil case has been held not incorporated against the States (Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916)).
  
  
• Eighth Amendment: The question of the incorporation of the right to protection against excessive fines has not been addressed.

Study and learn our history and law as it is -- not as you would like it to be.

 

[Sol]

Maybe driving should be a right seeing that most public roads and the interstate highway system wasn't built by volunteers and donations.

 

[Bluelight]

I am by no means an expert in case law, but the original constitution was written to recognize the rights of the people that were to be protected from government intrusion experienced under previous rulers. I realize that through the years courts have "interpreted" the constitution in different ways. That doesn't change the original meaning, only how it is applied for that generation of courts. When future cases are brought, no matter what the topic, the original case law may be modified or reversed in line with then current political thought. It all provides food for thought and emphasizes the importance of trying to be informed.

 

[borgranta]

It is ironic that felons can get a license to drive and yet not exercise a right.

It is ironic that felons can get a license to drive a car and yet not be allowed to exercise a right.

 

[larryh1108]

It is ironic that felons can get a license to drive a car and yet not be allowed to exercise a right

The irony is the felon gave up his right when he committed the felony.

 

[Snejdarek]

Well I am from a country where the process of getting a firearm license is basically the same as getting the driver's license:
- both have minimum age requirement (15/firearm, 18/car)
- both require written test (both tests include part on first aid!)
- both require practical test
- both require health clearance from general practitioner
- both require renewal subject to health clearance (only old people regarding driving)
- both have requirements regarding existence of administrative and criminal penalties (lack of driving prohibition for cars; clean criminal record/expunged records for firearms)

What I as a licensed gun owner with CCW really like about the system is that if I would ever have to face a random crook, the chances of him having a firearm are next to none (of course, a determined hitman will always get an illegal piece, but that is another matter). Czech Republic is a safe country, but should anything happen, I would be most probably asking him why he brings a knife to a gun fight.

Anyway, both cars and firearms may be very deadly. I prefer people going through the license process for a firearm for the same reason I want drivers to have a license.

I am more bothered by the fact that guns need to be registered - should the government fail to erase the records when invaded, the invaders can easily collect the firearms, limiting possibility of resistance movement. The Czech resistance in WWII was occupied with getting guns at least to the same extent as it was with harming the enemy. (Another history lesson: France did not erase its secret service records after being invaded by Germany: game over for French spies. Czechoslovakia destroyed all - some of the spies remained useful for the allied cause also during the war, other remained safe)

I understand that this has no bearing on the US debate, just giving opinion from elsewhere.

 

[Red Wind]

both have minimum age requirement (15/firearm, 18/car)

The age of 15 to acquire a concealed carry firearm license is remarkable. If I am reading you correctly. 21 is the norm for most of the 50 United States.

And welcome to THR, Snejdarek.