One of the big elephants in the room for anti-rights advocates is that cars can NEVER be compared to guns EVER. Even tho they cause many deaths every year, and the potential for them to be used as a weapon is great.
Officials with the sheriff’s department say the couple was arguing in the car.
Robertson decided to get out and began walking along the shoulder of the road. Investigators say that’s when Chaffie used her car to hit Robertson.
The 37-year-old was pronounced dead and Chaffie was arrested and taken to the Wise County Jail. Her bond has not been set.
Tempers flared and an angry women reached for the weapon she had at hand…a car. The anti-rights people claim that if carry laws are loosened in ANY way that people would would shoot each other over parking spots or fender benders. Like somehow a gun is MORE deadly than a car, but really all you need to do is crunch some numbers, and you’ll see that you’re enacting a LOT more trust walking on the sidewalk on a busy street than sitting in a restaurant where the guy across the room is open carrying a 1911.
h/t Bob
It is almost as if that “if they can’t grab a gun in the heat of the moment” argument doesn’t cut it.
Talk about trust sitting on the sidewalk, that ain’t nothing to driving on the freeways and streets every day. I mean, They let CHILDREN have licenses to DRIVE!!
They let children drive in red state flyover country. Here in Nanny-State Lefty Yankee-land you might be able to get a learner’s permit at 17, but I think the full-deal license isn’t until 18 here, but I’d need to check.
Dude, The Antis say they are children until they are 25 right?
They’re shooting for 85. You always need a mommy and daddy, be it your biological parents, or be big-daddy .gov, and Nannystate.
You know what would keep something like this from happening?
Make sure that all cars are registered with the state.
Require that all drivers have a license to operate a motor vehicle.
Require that all vehicle owners carry insurance on their cars.
That will make this never happen again…
LOL!
WOW, awesome point! That hilarious angle didn’t even occur to me!
QOTD! Thanks!
Damn you, McThag, you beat me to it!
Pingback: Quote of the Day: McThag | Weer'd World
We need to ban automobiles with “assault” features, too.
1. No “spoilers” (very similar to barrel shrouds in that politicians do not know what they do) must be outlawed since they encourage us to “snap” and run over kids at the bus stop. Think of the children! If it only saves one child’s life it’s worth it.
2. Limit horsepower. Why would anyone need more than 25 horsepower? You only need that much horsepower if you intend to run over a lot of pedestrians quickly. Oh, the humanity!
3. Ban SUVs. The currently unregulated heavy weight SUVs are clearly designed to penetrate anti-vehicle barriers and to even go off road to run down mountain bikers. Keep our parks safe!
4. We need more “no parking zones” and handicapped spaces because they have always halted all bad parking behavior. No one would dare to park in such a clearly marked space!
I could go on, but clearly the issue is that we need a lot more laws, rules, regulations, fees, and licenses to achive our common sense nirvana solution for cars. Remember, we are not trying to take away your cars, We’re just trying to make sure that it takes the direct intervention of God for you to get one. Ideally, only our government officials who have the skills of a race car driver (see Ted Kennedy) should have access to them since they can be trusted completely.
[Sarcasm – substitute firearms for cars and you get the idea…that’s for CSGV people]
http://mozambique-drill.blogspot.com/2010/09/rights-right.html
I did this back in ’09 where I put on cars and what not like they were guns, MA style.
The only thing I left out was the requirement to be a member of a recognized car club.
Eck!
I’ve never actively followed the public debate over guns, but a car is the first of several useful tools to which I have always compared guns! In specific situations, there is no viable substitute. Both are practical, and both are safe when used properly, but both can be dangerous to innocents, while in the hands of idiots and criminals. The only difference is the frequency with which most people need these tools. Why would this comparison be taboo?
Suz,
It is invalid, according to the antis, because…well, see it is like this,. Well look at it this way…if we….
Frankly the reason they dislike it is it trashes their argument.
We have more automotive related deaths but no one calls for banning cars.
We have more automotive related injuries but no one calls for suing the manufacturer if a wife runs over a husband with a car.
We let 16 year olds, in some cases 15 year olds, drive in public and yet we shouldn’t let 18 year olds carry firearms.
We have national reciprocity on driver’s licenses but darn it we can’t trust you people that didn’t get a license out of state for firearms.
Over and over again, their points are shown to be completely illogical and baseless.
That is why is it taboo.
Also the antis are a huge fan of “rules for thee, not for me” but all of them have been called on it at least once, so they do their best to insulate themselves from it.
You’ll often see high-ranking members of gun-banning groups (two good examples are John Rosenthal, and Ray Schoenke) who are hunters and/or trap and skeet shooters who own guns…but they (at least claim) to not own the handguns and black rifles they claim to want to ban.
But ALL of these self-important busy-bodies have cars and regularly drive. They can’t allow cars to be compared to firearms because the comparison can be made far to close, and they come off as horrible hypocrites.
Guns are different because guns are different!