Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by JColumbus, Nov 13, 2019.
Kind of a goofy poll on a gun forum.
Vehicle license and registration is about taxes and revenue generation. They are NOT the same because there is no public expenditure for infrastructure for me to carry a gun.
And THAT is where I always stood on the issue. That's the biggest argument when I stated that I know this would create other avenues of the debate. I tend to be ok with revenue generation to go toward infrastructure to be able to have public utilities.
But that's beside the point. None of those arguments are the one you are making. They all have to do with cars being DANGEROUS... So on those grounds, I have to disagree with license and registration.
Also, the differentiation you make that "They are NOT the same because there is no public expenditure for infrastructure for me to carry a gun", I think is hard to argue against. It's completely logical. HOWEVER, I think that a gun control minded person would argue that cops having to be armed is a public expenditure that is directly impacted by American's ability to own and cary guns. How would you ague against that response?
Whatever the case, I still think that money can be generated some other way, than having to have a license to drive a car. That being said, a google search "why do we register car", turned up this...
"The purpose of motor vehicle registration is to establish a link between a vehicle and an owner or user of the vehicle."
And I have to say that I don't agree with that. It obviously brings more questions like "why do we need to have a link" and I think the common sense answer to that has to do with an accident or something illegal being done with a particular car.
Again, that would be another argument that would be exactly the one they would make to go toward guns and in my mind, if someone agrees with the above quote, but doesn't agree it should be the same, it is hypocritical. Therefore, I have to say that I don't think vehicles should have to be registered, based on that quote.
Same goes for "why do we need a license to drive.
"The first and most important purpose of your driver's license is to notify law enforcement personnel that you have obtained your driver's license in the state in which you reside and arelegally allowed to operate a motor vehicle."
My biggest problem is the word "legally". It means I am PERMITTED to drive a car. I think that's absurd and if Americans are ok with this permission thing, will inevitably find it's way into us being permitted to own and carry a gun. If it's an inalienable right, there is nobody to have the power to give permission. This suggests to me that the government owns the right to allow people who are able to drive, the privilege to do so. Therefore, they would not be public roads.
If the roads are public, and I can buy myself a car, I should be able to drive MY car on roads that I put in on, without permission. I mean, I understand needing to be ABLE and SKILLED in driving a car, but once I've proven I am, I shouldn't need a license or be "legally" able to drive a car. I should just demonstrate that I can, and be free to do it.
So here's where it comes full circle. If I have to even DEMONSTRATE that I am able, than why not be forced to demonstrate that I am able to responsibly own and carry a gun? I know, I know, it's in the bill of rights.
Anyway, my main point is these arguments that the courts used to argue for requiring a license to drive, will also be the ones that will require us to register and acquire a license for guns. I always thought the reasons to need license and registration, were the exact ones you stated. It wasn't until I researched out of curiosity because of these videos about people who insist they do NOT need one, that I came across the courts' arguments for upholding the necessity for them.
I'm not an activist or anything. This is all just a good thought exercise for me. The only thing I am vehemently against when it comes to needing a license in Texas, were the surcharge "fines". Glad they did away with them.
Thanks for posting that. Really ads to the discussion.
Makes about as much sense as this whole thread.
I’d be interested to hear your argument but based on the intellectually lazy nature of this post, I won’t expect to.
You seem almost as if you are reading my response in a way like I’m intending to offend you, when I was just trying to have a friendly discussion.
Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense. No argument is perfect but my points on principle and how the gun control crowd will use the same ones to move toward registration, make plenty of sense. If you have no good rebuttal, fine, thanks for playing, but if you do, why dip your toes in the water and then just pick up your ball and go home?
I’d certainly like to be shown the flaws in my reasoning, if I’m dead wrong, but posts like that only serve to indicate you’ve drawn a blank.
We can have a good debate without being mean spirited. Right?
I'll argue with you when I get to a bigger monitor. By the time I get to the end I've forgotten the beginning
Shit I mistook the other guy for you haha.
I appreciate that though. I like perspective and to debate/discuss things because it helps build on or tear down an idea, and shows me what I’ve missed. Take your time.
We can start with this one.
Ummm just the first word made me a bit uneasy with your post. Fisting is viewed as a unnatural and perverted sexual activity. Fisting off .... Well sorry not for me.
That was the case in many states for a long time until SCOTUS ruled otherwise and required states offer carry licensing. (Yes, I’m agreeing it’s like driving)
The debate is whether that is constitutional or not. And it is a debate.
The issue with your argument about the right to drive on public roads is that it is centered around a right NOT enumerated in the constitution. Because it’s not enumerated it is going to be debated. Much like debates over the “right to healthcare” and what that entails. Naming things and calling them rights, while resting that argument on “not all rights are enumerated” is a dangerous game, and I believe it is being drastically oversimplified. My personal opinion typically falls back to “what can I provide for myself”. Anything outside of that category becomes sketchy.
I can’t provide myself a large paved road from Dallas to Houston. It’s built using collective funds obtained from tax payers and the rules regulating its use are decided by representatives elected by the tax payer.
Think I’ve strayed away from the topic. People who don’t like firearms are going to use any and every excuse to go after them. I don’t think drivers licensing or car registration will play a very big role aside from internet argument talking points.
If the discussion is going to be around cars I think it must first be decided if driving on public roads is really a right. I like these types of discussions. Better had at a coffee table than on the internet. Especially with credible argument that “I paid for it so I have a right to use it”.
Interesting discussion. Just not sure I agree with the comparison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk