Washington Guardian article: Washington state gun law being ignored.

[Stomper]

The vehicle parallel is a common argument against gun control, but it doesn't work. We require certain basic safety standards to drive a car: vision test, knowledge test, skills test, and mandatory insurance (which, by the way, also gets ignored a lot, yet no one screams that we shouldn't have mandatory insurance laws). We do not require any of this for a firearm, yet both a firearm and a vehicle are deadly in the wrong hands.

There may be plenty of valid arguments on why universal background checks or gun control doesn't work, but this isn't one of them.

What @nwslopoke is a valid argument because the 2A is a right, and driving is a priveledge that requires a license (aka permission) from the State. As a lawyer, you are well aware that by accepting/obtaining a license for any given activety, you directly and tacitly agree to the terms of that license. Given ALL that regulation, qualification tests, licensing and registration of drivers and automobiles.... WAY more people are injured and/or killed by automobiles, everyday, every year.

The Founding Fathers SPECIFICALLY listed the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "the right of the people to take training, obtain insurance, buy gun safes, then seek permission from "official authorities" to keep and bears arms...". The restriction is placed on the GOVERNMENT whether through legislation or a rigged "popular vote", and not the people.

People can (and should) be held accountable for their personal actions affecting others, but there's no "pre-crime" (yet), and 100% safety in this life is a fallacious illusion. A bunch of lying pin-heads writing imperatives on a piece of paper, getting it passed via the legislative process or by "popular vote" and calling it a "law" won't change that... ever.

Also, (despite what ISIS is advocating) owning and operating motor-vehicles (whether responsibly or in homocidal fashion) does not keep would-be tyrants at bay, either. That's why they're not going after automobiles.... yet.

 

[No_Regerts]

What @nwslopoke is a valid argument because the 2A is a right, and driving is a priveledge that requires a license (aka permission) from the State. As a lawyer, you are well aware that by accepting/obtaining a license for any given activety, you directly and tacitly agree to the terms of that license. Given ALL that regulation, qualification tests, licensing and registration of drivers and automobiles.... WAY more people are injured and/or killed by automobiles, everyday, every year.

The Founding Fathers SPECIFICALLY listed the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "the right of the people to take training, obtain insurance, buy gun safes, then seek permission from "official authorities" to keep and bears arms...". The restriction is placed on the GOVERNMENT whether through legislation or a rigged "popular vote", and not the people.

People can (and should) be held accountable for their personal actions affecting others, but there's no "pre-crime" (yet), and 100% safety in this life is a fallacious illusion. A bunch of lying pin-heads writing imperatives on a piece of paper, getting it passed via the legislative process or by "popular vote" and calling it a "law" won't change that... ever.

Also, (despite what ISIS is advocating) owning and operating motor-vehicles (whether responsibly or in homocidal fashion) does not keep would-be tyrants at bay, either. That's why they're not going after automobiles.... yet.

BOOM!

 

[Stomper]

BOOM!

BADA-BING!!

 

[Simonpie]

I've occasionally heard people say they want guns treated like cars legally. The weird thing is, the gun laws are already stricter. There is no license required for car ownership. The license is to use it out in public. The license to use a gun out in public (CPL) is relatively similar in intensity to a driver's license, but the restrictions on buying a gun are far stricter. The only thing missing is insurance. With the gun murder rate in Oregon down around 1 per 100,000, the cost will be ridiculously low. Compare this to all your friends and family. Most people have been in a couple car accidents. I know, I'm omitting wounding by gunshot, but I couldn't dig up any reliable data for that.

 

[Koda]

I've occasionally heard people say they want guns treated like cars legally. The weird thing is, the gun laws are already stricter. There is no license required for car ownership. The license is to use it out in public. The license to use a gun out in public (CPL) is relatively similar in intensity to a driver's license, but the restrictions on buying a gun are far stricter. The only thing missing is insurance. With the gun murder rate in Oregon down around 1 per 100,000, the cost will be ridiculously low. Compare this to all your friends and family. Most people have been in a couple car accidents. I know, I'm omitting wounding by gunshot, but I couldn't dig up any reliable data for that.

its also worth noting that when someone loses their privilege to drive they still can legally own the car including buying a new one.

 

[KKG]

A DL is nothing but another source of Tax Revenue. A few years back DOL actually published a internal report that said 42% of WA drivers were on the road without a valid DL. At the time my own records showed the percentage to be 56% but then I was working a very rural area of WA. The local sheriff had a written policy statement that Required Officers not to write any Driver for anything less than 15 over the limit!

Walk into just about any group of people and ask them to raise there Right Hand(you may have to explain the difference between a Left and a Right) and then tell them you are going to ask a question and you want them to keep their hands up if they agree. The question is: "I have a Right to Drive." If less than 50% have their hands stay up, you just might have a very large percentage of CPL holders.

 

[WALawyer]

What @nwslopoke is a valid argument because the 2A is a right, and driving is a priveledge that requires a license (aka permission) from the State. As a lawyer, you are well aware that by accepting/obtaining a license for any given activety, you directly and tacitly agree to the terms of that license. Given ALL that regulation, qualification tests, licensing and registration of drivers and automobiles.... WAY more people are injured and/or killed by automobiles, everyday, every year.

The Founding Fathers SPECIFICALLY listed the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "the right of the people to take training, obtain insurance, buy gun safes, then seek permission from "official authorities" to keep and bears arms...". The restriction is placed on the GOVERNMENT whether through legislation or a rigged "popular vote", and not the people.

People can (and should) be held accountable for their personal actions affecting others, but there's no "pre-crime" (yet), and 100% safety in this life is a fallacious illusion. A bunch of lying pin-heads writing imperatives on a piece of paper, getting it passed via the legislative process or by "popular vote" and calling it a "law" won't change that... ever.

Also, (despite what ISIS is advocating) owning and operating motor-vehicles (whether responsibly or in homocidal fashion) does not keep would-be tyrants at bay, either. That's why they're not going after automobiles.... yet.

I get the "right vs privilege" argument, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and may be burdened in certain ways.

The license to use a gun out in public (CPL) is relatively similar in intensity to a driver's license, but the restrictions on buying a gun are far stricter.

Maybe that's the case in Oregon, but in most states, the requirement to get a concealed license is: 1) be over 21, have a pulse, have no prohibiting events, and 2) pay a fee. There are no tests of any kind as a prerequisite as there is with a driver's license, so the statement that a concealed license is "relatively similar in intensity" to a driver's license is just wrong.

its also worth noting that when someone loses their privilege to drive they still can legally own the car including buying a new one.

Technically, a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm does not lose the right to own the firearm. The property right in the firearm remains, just can't possess it. It's common to just transfer the guns to someone else or even have a police department hang on to them until the prohibition dissipates/rights are restored.

 

[Koda]

Technically, a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm does not lose the right to own the firearm. The property right in the firearm remains, just can't possess it. It's common to just transfer the guns to someone else or even have a police department hang on to them until the prohibition dissipates/rights are restored.

Thats interesting to learn, makes sense... Thank you.

However there is still a huge difference between the car analogy, is that a person is only probibited from driving the car on public roads. He can still buy one, and operate one on private roads, and obviously posess one. Im just saying I agree that gun laws are way stricter than auto laws. If the antis had to go thru a UBC to buy a car suddenly their "rights" would be violated....