I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.
I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:
To buy or operate a standard car, one
(
Read more... )
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
Apart from being an import, I'm sure my urban assault vehicle Land Rover LR3 falls into all sorts of banned/bannable categories, even if you exclude cosmetics like mag wheels. It's got more than 3 speeds in the transmission (at least a half-dozen if you include all combinations of high/low range and automatic/semi manual). Then there's the whole terrain control system -- no one needs to drive anywhere except on paved roads. We won't mention the 4.8L engine which has a top speed in excess of 110mph. And certainly not how I know it goes that fast...
Reply
Reply
If cars kill more people than guns, but "aren't meant to," it means they're too dangerous for people to be allowed to operate.
I've been using guns for decades and never killed anyone, so your statement is false. There are many purposes for guns that don't involve killing people.
Killing people is only bad if unjustified. This is why we have a court system. This is why police carry guns. This is why self defense is legal in every state, and it's now legal to carry firearms in every state.
There are 90+ million gun owners in the country, and 89,999,925 of them didn't kill anyone yesterday. Of the ones who did, 50 were acting in self defense or were otherwise justified.
There is neither a right to drive a car, nor a need for most people to do so. It's the ultimate rationalization of selfishness.
But please go find a morgue, and a teenager killed by a drunk, and inform the parents that "at least it wasn't a gun." I'm sure they'll appreciate the difference.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thanks
Reply
Leave a comment