Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 245

Thread: An attempted mass killing this weekend.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pointy end and slightly to the left
    Posts
    1,539

    An attempted mass killing this weekend.

    An attempted mass killing this weekend. Killed one, another person was critically injured. Two others were taken to hospitals in serious condition 8 others injured, dozens running for their lives. The perpetrator armed himself with a full auto Dodge.

    Not making light of such a horrendous and sad issue however, applying the anti gun thinking we should have laws to stop such act. Like making it illegal to drive on the sidewalk. We should require the weapon to be registered, the operator to have a license.

    As most derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers, such laws, and requirements mean nothing to them. So we should sue all car manufactures for making such a weapon which when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot can be used to kill and injure a large group of civilians.

    Maybe we can encourage a brainless billionaire to start a mayors lacking commonsense activist group in hopes of forcing car manufactures to make their vehicles out of sponge rubber and Styrofoam because if it saves just one life when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot it would be worth it.

    At the legal vehicle owners expense the government should require all legal vehicle owners when doing their daily routine to tow an armored secure lockable trailer behind their vehicle. When a vehicle is parked unattended, it must be locked and secured in the trailer after removing the tires and wheels. Wheels and tires to be locked in a separate container and drain the fuel into a lockable EPA approved container meeting all state, county, city, national and UN fire codes. All in an effort to keep the derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers from taking it. If it saves just one life, it is worth it.
    Last edited by 28kfps; 08-06-2013 at 02:24 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 28kfps View Post
    An attempted mass killing this weekend. Killed one, another person was critically injured. Two others were taken to hospitals in serious condition 8 others injured, dozens running for their lives. The perpetrator armed himself with a full auto Dodge.

    Not making light of such a horrendous and sad issue however, applying the anti gun thinking we should have laws to stop such act. Like making it illegal to drive on the sidewalk. We should require the weapon to be registered, the operator to have a license.

    As most derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers, such laws, and requirements mean nothing to them. So we should sue all car manufactures for making such a weapon which when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot can be used to kill and injure a large group of civilians.

    Maybe we can encourage a brainless billionaire to start a mayors lacking commonsense activist group in hopes of forcing car manufactures to make their vehicles out of sponge rubber and Styrofoam because if it saves just one life when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot it would be worth it.

    At the legal vehicle owners expense the government should require all legal vehicle owners when doing their daily routine to tow an armored secure lockable trailer behind their vehicle. When a vehicle is parked unattended, it must be locked and secured in the trailer after removing the tires and wheels. Wheels and tires to be locked in a separate container and drain the fuel into a lockable EPA approved container meeting all state, county, city, national and UN fire codes. All in an effort to keep the derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers from taking it. If it saves just one life, it is worth it.
    Apt analogy, is there a link to the story?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Apt analogy, is there a link to the story?
    It's the Venice Beachwalk vehicular homicide.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3703376.html Found it.

    Black dodge avenger, must be an assault vehicle. If they would limit the number of tires this wouldn't happen.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Not to make light of it, but when Gifford's got shot here in Tucson, I pointed out very clearly that her attacker could have done much more damage with a car than he could have with a gun.

    Even if we had incidents like this one every week, nothing would ever be done. Politicians do not care about saving lives, unless it is their own. You cannot mount a rebellion by driving cars, using bats etc.

    We all know why they want gun bans and it has nothing to do with saving lives.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3703376.html Found it.

    Black dodge avenger, must be an assault vehicle. If they would limit the number of tires this wouldn't happen.
    The logic of anti-gunners, for loose definition of "logic" is easily attacked by analogizing to vehicle incidents. There is no right to drive in the constitution (vs RkBA) and the average person sees vastly more risk from vehicle "violence" as compared to firearms violence. We have all kinds of sentence enhancements in various jurisdictions for using a firearm in the commission of various crimes, but Im not aware of any (are there any?) vehicle enhancements for using a vehicle in the commission of a crime.

    Certainh vehicle types are substantially more likely to be the means used in "vehicle violence" but libtards don't call for bans, etc. They are primarily concerned with SUVs for gas guzzling, though

    Ive heard them whinge about "saturday night specials" which are simply firearms inexpensive enough for more people to be able to afford them (and statistically speaking, lower income demographics are more likely to be the victims of gun violence0, BUT i don't see them whinge about inexpensiev vehicles as "monday afternoon" specials that should be banned

    Even in my profession, in most years more of us are killed via vehicles , whether accidental or intentional incidents, than via firearms

    Fatality rates increase substantially at higher speeds, so where are the antis calling for limiters to be installed to keep vehicles from going too fast?

    and etc.

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Re: An attempted mass killing this weekend.

    I am demanding the President speak to the American people and:

    1) Demand that all private automobiles be limited to 2 cylinders. There is no reason that anyone needs more than 2. Vehicles with 8+ cylinders are used in the military... and rightfully so. They have the training to handle such vehicles.

    2) Immediately demand legislation forbidding those who are nonimmigrant aliens, felons, those convicted of any violent misdemeanor, and those who are under terms of an order of protection from possession of any personal vehicle.

    3) Demand legislation to limit gas tank capacity to 1 gallon. By limiting tank capacity to 1 gallon of either gas or diesel, lives will be saved because a person would not want to drive in a manner that would increase fuel consumption, such as the person responsible for the Venice Beach tragedy did. Additionally, this common-sense restriction would limit the area needed to be searched after these tragic events. It is a small inconvenience to demand drivers fill up every 10-35 miles if it saves one life.

    4) Change the age for purchase of a private vehicle to 21 years old if purchased from a dealer. Although private party purchase of vehicles may be determined by individual states, I suggest a common age in all states. Possession of a vehicle is allowed for those under 21 only if they have a signed/notarized copy of a permission slip from parent/guardian AND is under direct supervision of a person over 21 licensed to drive.

    Besides these commonsense immediate restrictions on these weapons of death, I demand that the President coordinate the establishment of a panel composed of citizens who have loved ones that have been killed or seriously injured by private vehicles. This panel will present a report to Congress within 90 days outlining other policies or legislation that can be enacted to stem the flow of blood in the streets. When will enough be enough?
    Last edited by DrTodd; 08-06-2013 at 11:35 AM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    The logic of anti-gunners, for loose definition of "logic" is easily attacked by analogizing to vehicle incidents. There is no right to drive in the constitution (vs RkBA) and the average person sees vastly more risk from vehicle "violence" as compared to firearms violence. We have all kinds of sentence enhancements in various jurisdictions for using a firearm in the commission of various crimes, but Im not aware of any (are there any?) vehicle enhancements for using a vehicle in the commission of a crime.

    Certainh vehicle types are substantially more likely to be the means used in "vehicle violence" but libtards don't call for bans, etc. They are primarily concerned with SUVs for gas guzzling, though

    Ive heard them whinge about "saturday night specials" which are simply firearms inexpensive enough for more people to be able to afford them (and statistically speaking, lower income demographics are more likely to be the victims of gun violence0, BUT i don't see them whinge about inexpensiev vehicles as "monday afternoon" specials that should be banned

    Even in my profession, in most years more of us are killed via vehicles , whether accidental or intentional incidents, than via firearms

    Fatality rates increase substantially at higher speeds, so where are the antis calling for limiters to be installed to keep vehicles from going too fast?

    and etc.
    There's no right to drive in the constituion? There's no right to breath either.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    There's no right to drive in the constituion? There's no right to breath either.
    True that. So don't piss off Obamaco and his murderdrones, though or he might revoke your permit to breathe

    That aside, the operative difference between breathing and driving is only one is an "other regarding" activity that kills and maims thousands of people per year.

    As a libertarian, I don't think the state has interest/authoritah in regulating self regarding behavior. That's why all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc.

    However, when it comes to activities, like driving, that are substantially injurious to other parties, like driving , the state has a high interest in regulation

    Driving is unique from carrying a firearm in that it is not constitutionally protected. RKBA *is*

    That's why it's just for the state to require licenses to drive, but UNJUST for them to requiire permits/licenses to conceal carry

    Imo, shall not be infringed means just that

    Any regulatory scheme that infringes on the RKBA is unconstitutional imo. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land, but constitutional driving (the right to drive without regulation) should NOT be

    I'm somewhat OK with rescinding RKBA if the person has been convicted of at least a VIOLENT felony, but the fact that people can't RKBA because of a garden variety felony like writing a check on a closed account imo is violative of the 2nd amendment

    cheers

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    True that. So don't piss off Obamaco and his murderdrones, though or he might revoke your permit to breathe

    That aside, the operative difference between breathing and driving is only one is an "other regarding" activity that kills and maims thousands of people per year.
    Driving kills NO ONE. Driving incorrectly does. Hmmmm... Cars don't kill people, people kill people?

    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    As a libertarian, I don't think the state has interest/authoritah in regulating self regarding behavior. That's why all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc.

    However, when it comes to activities, like driving, that are substantially injurious to other parties, like driving , the state has a high interest in regulation
    As a libertarian, you should study a bit more about "liberty". Driving is injurious to no one. It also doesn't matter if the state has a "high interest" in regulating something if it has not been given the constitutional authority to regulate.

    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Driving is unique from carrying a firearm in that it is not constitutionally protected. RKBA *is*

    That's why it's just for the state to require licenses to drive, but UNJUST for them to requiire permits/licenses to conceal carry

    Imo, shall not be infringed means just that
    Not even close to correct. You probably meant that driving is not an "enumerated" right, but the "right to travel" is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. It is unjust for a state to require a license where it has no constitutional authority to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Any regulatory scheme that infringes on the RKBA is unconstitutional imo. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land, but constitutional driving (the right to drive without regulation) should NOT be

    I'm somewhat OK with rescinding RKBA if the person has been convicted of at least a VIOLENT felony, but the fact that people can't RKBA because of a garden variety felony like writing a check on a closed account imo is violative of the 2nd amendment

    cheers
    You are one of millions that have accepted the loss of our right to travel... you even spew the rhetoric we've been told to make us feel better about it. Please take some time to understand the word "liberty", especially as it pertains to our right to travel.

    Our 2A right will evaporate similarly if we fail to understand what happened to our right to travel.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Driving kills NO ONE. Driving incorrectly does. Hmmmm... Cars don't kill people, people kill people?



    As a libertarian, you should study a bit more about "liberty". Driving is injurious to no one. It also doesn't matter if the state has a "high interest" in regulating something if it has not been given the constitutional authority to regulate.



    Not even close to correct. You probably meant that driving is not an "enumerated" right, but the "right to travel" is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. It is unjust for a state to require a license where it has no constitutional authority to do so.



    You are one of millions that have accepted the loss of our right to travel... you even spew the rhetoric we've been told to make us feel better about it. Please take some time to understand the word "liberty", especially as it pertains to our right to travel.

    Our 2A right will evaporate similarly if we fail to understand what happened to our right to travel.
    Rubbish. There is a substantial difference between RKBA and driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to travel is paramount, sure. The right to use a potential deadly weapon traveling at high speeds, and that use of results in many deaths per year is a privilege not a right.

    Again, the right to travel is respected. The right to travel VIA an automobile is a privilege and is and should be highly regulated. Travel hurts nobody. Automobile use hurts scores of thousands.

    You falsely claim that only improper driving leads to collisions. Utter rubbish. Sometimes, environmental conditions and/or vehicle defects that are unknown and no responsibility of the driver, cause collisions. It is certainly true that MOST collisions are mostly or solely the result of driver error (too fast for conditions, follwoing too closely, etc.)

    Study the NHTSA stats, etc. You will see that this is true. However, again, it is true that MOST vehicular carnage involves driver error.

    Many collisions are also caused by pedestrian error. Little kids running into the street. That's one of the reason we set speed limits low in residential area. At 25 mph, you have substantially less risk of hitting a kid who engages in such error, and substantially less risk of killing him if you hit them. That's a regulation *I* am willing to live with.

    The issue is that we invented a device that is fraught with danger, the automobile, to make travel more efficient. Thousands of people die every year. Imnsho the state has a duty to highly regulate same, and that;s why on every civilized nation on earth, it is thus regulated.

    We have managed through improved medicine, improved vehicle design, improved enforcement (specifically dui), airbags, etc. etc. to bring our fatality per mile driven RATE down to 20% of what it was at its peak. That is phenomenal and literally scores of thousands of people who will live, who once would not

    We will continue to highyl regulate and enforce driving because it's the right thing to do and because it saves lives, not just lives of those driving badly, but lives of pure innocents who get struck by them.

    RKBA to contrast is a right, not a privilege. The state thus has a substantially high burden to regulat same IN ANY WAY, and certainly far less than it does, with licenses and other such rubbish.

    A libertarian who doesn't want to strongly regulate driving is an idiot libertarian. A libertarian who wants to strongly regulate RKBA is not a libertarian.

    If we are going to LET people (it's a privilege) operate deadly missiles at high speed, we should , must, and do regulate them - requiring licenses, enforcing DUI laws, etc. etc. and thank god we do. We've saved tons of lives by doing so (see above about collision rates).

    It's wholly distinguishable from RKBA.

    cheers

    PS I forgot to mention vehicle collisions caused my medical events. It's hardly the "fault" of a driver, if they have a heart attack while driving, or a seizure (certainly not if it's their first seizure), etc.

    I've investigated several collsions caused be medical events e.g. heart attack, diabetic episode, bee sting while driving (anaphylaxis etc.). Those are usually unpredictable events and cause some serious carnage. But by regulating (making cars more crash resistant and protective of occupants) we substantially reduce their risk.
    Last edited by PALO; 08-06-2013 at 01:17 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    There's no right to drive in the constituion? There's no right to breath either.
    Uh?
    .....nor be
    deprived
    of life, liberty, or property, without
    due process
    of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    We have a right to breath until it is revoked via due process of law. Cops get to do that every now and then, the revoking part that is.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Rubbish. There is a substantial difference between RKBA and driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to travel is paramount, sure. The right to use a potential deadly weapon traveling at high speeds, and that use of results in many deaths per year is a privilege not a right.

    Again, the right to travel is respected. The right to travel VIA an automobile is a privilege and is and should be highly regulated. Travel hurts nobody. Automobile use hurts scores of thousands.

    You falsely claim that only improper driving leads to collisions. Utter rubbish. Sometimes, environmental conditions and/or vehicle defects that are unknown and no responsibility of the driver, cause collisions. It is certainly true that MOST collisions are mostly or solely the result of driver error (too fast for conditions, follwoing too closely, etc.)

    Study the NHTSA stats, etc. You will see that this is true. However, again, it is true that MOST vehicular carnage involves driver error.

    Many collisions are also caused by pedestrian error. Little kids running into the street. That's one of the reason we set speed limits low in residential area. At 25 mph, you have substantially less risk of hitting a kid who engages in such error, and substantially less risk of killing him if you hit them. That's a regulation *I* am willing to live with.

    The issue is that we invented a device that is fraught with danger, the automobile, to make travel more efficient. Thousands of people die every year. Imnsho the state has a duty to highly regulate same, and that;s why on every civilized nation on earth, it is thus regulated.

    We have managed through improved medicine, improved vehicle design, improved enforcement (specifically dui), airbags, etc. etc. to bring our fatality per mile driven RATE down to 20% of what it was at its peak. That is phenomenal and literally scores of thousands of people who will live, who once would not

    We will continue to highyl regulate and enforce driving because it's the right thing to do and because it saves lives, not just lives of those driving badly, but lives of pure innocents who get struck by them.

    RKBA to contrast is a right, not a privilege. The state thus has a substantially high burden to regulat same IN ANY WAY, and certainly far less than it does, with licenses and other such rubbish.

    A libertarian who doesn't want to strongly regulate driving is an idiot libertarian. A libertarian who wants to strongly regulate RKBA is not a libertarian.

    If we are going to LET people (it's a privilege) operate deadly missiles at high speed, we should , must, and do regulate them - requiring licenses, enforcing DUI laws, etc. etc. and thank god we do. We've saved tons of lives by doing so (see above about collision rates).

    It's wholly distinguishable from RKBA.

    cheers
    Citizens used to get trampled by horses and horse drawn vehicles. The mode of transportation is not the issue the operator is the issue. You desire (accept) the limitations placed on the citizenry by liberals, who have voted into existence, laws that have no direct linkage to a constitution. Making the operating of a motor vehicle a licensed activity for the responsible law abiding citizen is analogous to a pistol permit. Now, we can disagree and that is fine, but, liberty demands that irresponsibility, negligent or intentional, be addressed after the event. Liberty does not demand preemptive acts by government, only liberals demand such, and so do liberal-lite folks who agree with just a little bit of government oppression.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Uh?We have a right to breath until it is revoked via due process of law. Cops get to do that every now and then, the revoking part that is.
    Thanks for catching this OCforME. I believe Palo missed it...

    Breathing is esential for our right to life just as traveling is essential for our right to liberty
    Last edited by georg jetson; 08-06-2013 at 01:30 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Citizens used to get trampled by horses and horse drawn vehicles. The mode of transportation is not the issue the operator is the issue. You desire (accept) the limitations placed on the citizenry by liberals, who have voted into existence, laws that have no direct linkage to a constitution. Making the operating of a motor vehicle a licensed activity for the responsible law abiding citizen is analogous to a pistol permit. Now, we can disagree and that is fine, but, liberty demands that irresponsibility, negligent or intentional, be addressed after the event. Liberty does not demand preemptive acts by government, only liberals demand such, and so do liberal-lite folks who agree with just a little bit of government oppression.
    +1

    Ill add... The courts defined "driving" as comercial activity and then the legislatures used their authority to regulate it. Next, states slowy brought all activity on the public roads under comercial activity and a huge majority of citizens acquiesced. The right to travel is gone and it appears to have passed with cheers from the people.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    As I've said before, thanks to the Heller decision, which protects (using the "popularity doctrine") semi-automatic handguns as an extension of the second amendment, the right to drive a car must similarly be a protected extension of the first amendment right to travel for assembly. QED.

    No, I haven't cut up my DL, but that doesn't mean PALO here isn't 100% full of **** (accepting that he's just parroting statist sophistry from the SCOTUS).

    Now, someone ban me for excessive alliteration.
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-06-2013 at 02:12 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    As I've said before, thanks to the Heller decision, which protects (using the "popularity doctrine") semi-automatic handguns as an extension of the second amendment, the right to drive a car must similarly be a protected extension of the first amendment right to travel for assembly. QED.

    No, I haven't cut up my DL, but that doesn't mean PALO here isn't 100% full of **** (accepting that he's just parroting statist sophistry from the SCOTUS).

    Now, someone ban me for excessive alliteration.
    Geeeeeez! I can't believe I left out the 1A. Thanks

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to travel" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a motor vehicle." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

    There are plenty of people who should not be driving a motor vehicle.

    IMO, the standards for a driver's license are too low, and fewer people should be able to get one. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for teenagers.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Informed discussion of the right to travel and motoring will be found on bicycling activists forums - one might start at LABreform.org.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    The logic of anti-gunners, for loose definition of "logic" is easily attacked by analogizing to vehicle incidents. There is no right to drive in the constitution (vs RkBA) and the average person sees vastly more risk from vehicle "violence" as compared to firearms violence. We have all kinds of sentence enhancements in various jurisdictions for using a firearm in the commission of various crimes, but Im not aware of any (are there any?) vehicle enhancements for using a vehicle in the commission of a crime.

    Certainh vehicle types are substantially more likely to be the means used in "vehicle violence" but libtards don't call for bans, etc. They are primarily concerned with SUVs for gas guzzling, though

    Ive heard them whinge about "saturday night specials" which are simply firearms inexpensive enough for more people to be able to afford them (and statistically speaking, lower income demographics are more likely to be the victims of gun violence0, BUT i don't see them whinge about inexpensiev vehicles as "monday afternoon" specials that should be banned

    Even in my profession, in most years more of us are killed via vehicles , whether accidental or intentional incidents, than via firearms

    Fatality rates increase substantially at higher speeds, so where are the antis calling for limiters to be installed to keep vehicles from going too fast?

    and etc.
    Many Constitutional scholars would disagree with your statement that "there is no right to drive" in the Constitution. From the time of the Assizes, which our common law is based upon, the right to peaceful passage has always existed. Horses were not regulated in the 17-1800s, and they were the mode of transportation for that passage. The car is the horse a century removed. That government regulates cars has no basis in the Constitution except vaguely in Interstate Commerce. Cars are a way of generating revenue for the states. Preying upon lawful citizens by the police for traffic "violations" the biggest outrage. Traffic cops should wear masks as they are no better than outlaws robbing citizens in the stagecoach era.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to travel" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a motor vehicle." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

    There are plenty of people who should not be driving a motor vehicle.

    IMO, the standards for a driver's license are too low, and fewer people should be able to get one. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for teenagers.
    You have to understand that the term "motor vehicle" is a legal term. It does not include my private property which happens to have a motor.

    Additionally, all forms of travel are regulated. Bicycles, walking etc...

    Just like any right, the right I have to use the roads that I help pay for cannot be licensed in a free republic. Defining what type of property I may travel with results in a regulated right.

    Let's remind of ourselves that safety is never a reason to give government authority to regulate a right.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to travel" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a motor vehicle." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.
    I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to keep and bear arms" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a semi-automatic handgun." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

    There are plenty of people who should not be driving a motor vehicle.
    There are plenty of people who should not be carrying a semi-automatic handgun.

    IMO, the standards for a driver's license are too low, and fewer people should be able to get one. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for teenagers.
    IMO, the standards to carry a semi-automatic handgun are too low, and fewer people should be able to do so. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for young adults.




    Does that help?
    Last edited by marshaul; 08-06-2013 at 04:14 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    On-Topic-ish: The analogy of a car vs. a gun is very appropriate. Off-Topick: What is not appropriate is a cop telling me that my civic duty is to be defined by a cop. A cop should never throw stones when he resides in a glass house.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    On-Topic-ish: The analogy of a car vs. a gun is very appropriate. Off-Topick: What is not appropriate is a cop telling me that my civic duty is to be defined by a cop. A cop should never throw stones when he resides in a glass house.
    Driving is a privilege . RKBA is a right. The distinctions are immense. Anybody who thinks the state doesn't have immense interest in regulating the single most dangerous activity the average person engages in, and that injures or kills scores of thousands of people every year, doesn't understand the difference between libertarianism and libertinism

    As for your opinion. Groovy. My opinion differs. First of all, whether it's a cop or not a cop is irrelevant. I am a concerned citizen before I am a cop. And my opinion as to what your civic duty is, is just that, my opinion. It would be no different if I was a stockbroker. Imo, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Imo, if you are not kind and polite to people, you are in the wrong. Imo, if you know that your local PD is doing stuff wrong, and you make zero effort to effect change, you are shirking your civic duty. Imo, if you aren't keeping an eye out for your neighbors, you are shirking your civic duty.

    Imo, if you are just going to sit in your basement, eating hot pockets while your mama brings you lemonade, but aren't doing your civic duty, you got nobody but yourself to blame if your pd sucks.

    I've seen the good that people who do their civic duty can do. Heck, today is national night out! and I'll be meeting with block watch people and other concerned citizens who have gone way beyond their civic duty to make their communities safer and to help fight crime. Bully for them

    Imo, it's anybody's prerogative, cop, stockbroker, or fisherman to give his opinion on what people's civic duty is. And it's anybody else's opinion to agree or disagree.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Driving is a privilege . RKBA is a right. The distinctions are immense.
    Yeah... you said that already. If you're not gonna read our posts why should we read yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Anybody who thinks the state doesn't have immense interest in regulating the single most dangerous activity the average person engages in, and that injures or kills scores of thousands of people every year, doesn't understand the difference between libertarianism and libertinism

    More irrelevant useless stuff SNIPED
    The state has only the authority to regulate that which the constitution gives it authority. It doesn't have the authority to regulate the right to travel.

    You pretend to understand liberty.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •