Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Au contraire, I did not validate your version of the analogy at all, and unless
you're a blithering idiot, you know that.
Some people don't every "get it" because they just want to. They compare the use of an object in one case, with the ownership and possession, short of actual use, on the other hand.
Anyone, regarless of age, drivers license status, vision acuity can OWN or shall we say "bear" a vehicle. Just just can't operate it on a pubilc thoroughfare without certerain peramaters being met.
It is very similar to the old schill about all rights are limited. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. While that is true, you are free to keep your vocal cords in a crowded theatre, and free to speak in hushed tones, at least it isn't a crime.
The proper response is
Anti-freedom wanna-be tyrant:
'All rights are limited. You can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre"
Pro-freedom patriot:
"That is true, and you can't shoot a gun in a crowded theatre either."
That usually shuts them up. I find it helps to offer then a Kleenex.
Where were you when I needed you, to help me argue with blog-parroting non-thinkers who insisted that driving is a privilege, not a right. The government has a tacit right to regulate any human behavior or activity that can have an effect on non-consenting citizens. Even speech, religion, the press and assembly. And arms. To hear pro-gun people, the only thing the government has NO right to regulate is the well-regulated militia.
Actually, driving on public streets is a prviledge. Driving on private property, however, is not regulated.
Konraden, let me try to respond to as many of your points as I can.
On the issue of self defense as a reason to own guns, you said 2 million cases of self defense using guns. That is a vague stat... 2 million cases per day? per year? and even if that can be somehow validated and clarified, compared to 307 million in US population, I wonder how significant that is.
I was also addressing the person that said he would feel like he was in trouble if he didn't have guns but the criminals and the gov't/police had guns. Yes, it sucks that criminals have illegal guns and I hope we can do more do get rid of them, but why would he feel threatened that the police have guns? Does he think that the cops will pull you over more often if they knew the regular folks couldn't no longer carry? And if you did carry and a cop pulled you over what would you do different if you had a gun? Pull it out?
Where were you when I needed you, to help me argue with blog-parroting non-thinkers who insisted that driving is a privilege, not a right. The government has a tacit right to regulate any human behavior or activity that can have an effect on non-consenting citizens. Even speech, religion, the press and assembly. And arms. To hear pro-gun people, the only thing the government has NO right to regulate is the well-regulated militia.
If you read the other writings by the framers of our Constitution in the link above, you will see that they meant regulated as in organized. I also the same way that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was written with the same thing in mind. That the government shouldn't "control" interstate commerce but should organize it to flow more freely.
If you read the other writings by the framers of our Constitution in the link above, you will see that they meant regulated as in organized. I also the same way that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was written with the same thing in mind. That the government shouldn't "control" interstate commerce but should organize it to flow more freely.
In the application and interpretation of law, one fundamental principle exists - the principle of "legislative intent".
Basically, when the intent of the legislating body is unclear from a plain and simple reading, then one who interprets and applies the law is to consult the great universe of the intent of the legislator by reviewing the writting and speaking of the legislators on that topic.
It is clear from the writings and speaking of the Founders that they wanted the 2nd Amendent to serve as a deterent to tyranny in government.
It is equally clear from their writings and notes, that the "interstate commerce clause" was writtent to prevent states from imposing tariff and non-tariff trade restraints and barriers on commerce between the states, and the indian tribes and foreign nations.
Actually, driving on public streets is a prviledge. Driving on private property, however, is not regulated.
You don't have any idea what "privilege" means, do you? Our forefathers fought a revolutionary war in order to create a nation in which the concept of privilege does not exist. We will thank you to not restore it.
Is it OK with you, then if, for exactly the same reason of public safety, it is OK to own a gun and bear it on private property, but bearing arrms on public streets or other public places can be regulated? If you want to take both a car and a gun to town, they both have to be licensed, in the interest of public safety. If you just absolutely, positively, definitely have to have a gun to go the mall, pay a few bucks license fee and take your gun to the mall. The, if your gun or your car is involved in an accident, things can get sorted out more smoothly.
Yes, I know, the gun is a right and driving is a privilege (which is a lie originated by radical bloggers and parroted by forum posters who cannot think for themselves), but aside from that and as a practical matter, since both have equally dangerous potential if unregulated, does it make sense to you that both would reasonably be regulated similarly, for public safety?
You don't have any idea what "privilege" means, do you? Our forefathers fought a revolutionary war in order to create a nation in which the concept of privilege does not exist. We will thank you to not restore it.
Is it OK with you, then if, for exactly the same reason of public safety, it is OK to own a gun and bear it on private property, but bearing arrms on public streets or other public places can be regulated? If you want to take both a car and a gun to town, they both have to be licensed, in the interest of public safety. If you just absolutely, positively, definitely have to have a gun to go the mall, pay a few bucks license fee and take your gun to the mall. The, if your gun or your car is involved in an accident, things can get sorted out more smoothly.
Yes, I know, the gun is a right and driving is a privilege (which is a lie originated by radical bloggers and parroted by forum posters who cannot think for themselves), but aside from that and as a practical matter, since both have equally dangerous potential if unregulated, does it make sense to you that both would reasonably be regulated similarly, for public safety?
Mr Jtur88, if you are going to respond to my posts, I would ask that you keep a civil tounge in your head, so to speak.
Of course, i know what a priviledge is. It is some legal authority to engage in something granted by the state. A Right, exists spontaneously, without a grant from the state.
For example, being a Doctor is a priviledge, under terms of a license to practice medicine. Seeking the services of a doctor is a right.
I hope you understand what I am saying.
Secondly, I don't think the forefathers fought a war to create a nation were there were no privledges, but one where everyone was created equal - same rights and same privildges.
The rest of your post ws too tedious to bother with.
No, being a doctor is a right, provided you meet standardized professional criteria. If it were a privilege, only some MDs would be allowed to practice, according to the whims of whomever grants the privilege.
Are you saying that going to college is a privilege? Or a right? If you meet the entrance requirements, you have a right. Anyone who says you don't is guilty of discrimination. If you pass all the qualifying criteria to get a drivers license, the DL is a right. Nobody has the legal power to withhold it from you, and denying the "privilege" would be an exercise of unlawful discrimination.
A privilege is something that can be arbitrarily denied, regardless of qualifications. And that doesn't happen in the America that I would fight to defend.
Please keep in mind that modern dictionaries, terrified of PC police, list every definition that is in common usage, regardless of whether correct or not. DMVs increasingly are calling driving a "privilege' in order to impress upon applicants their responsibilities, but that is BS, it is not a privilege, and calling it a privilege does not make it one. That ersatz self-serving usage has gotten into dictionaries, hence your definition,
Everything that is regulated still remains a right (at least in America) provided the qualifying criteria are met according to reasonable regulations that apply equally to everyone. Driving absolutely falls smack into that category.
Last edited by jtur88; 04-09-2010 at 04:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
