Images of the Antis: Guns and Cars

Man, this shit again?

OK First up, no need to repeat what Lawdog has said before. The guns and cars argument is nothing but another bad-faith argument the antis are making. They don’t want guns treated like cars AT ALL! They just want to enact certain laws, and use cars only where it fits and nowhere else. Let’s face it, antis don’t want the same laws for cars applied to guns. Not only that, they don’t want gun laws applied to cars. You may have gotten a DUI back when you were in college, but the state gave you your license back, and the whole time you still owned your car, and you could have bought a new one whenever you wanted. Not if we regulate cars like guns, you’ll never OWN a car for the rest of your life, and the car you were driving when you were over the limit is now being auctioned off by the PD, or crushed and sold as scrap!

There are certain features that were born from racing technology. Disk breaks, forced induction, lightweight materials, steering-wheel mounted controls. Sorry, you want that fancy new BMW? Sorry that’s a “Race Car” by arbitrary government decisions, and you can get one ONLY if it’s a pre-86 M3 that will only set you back $500,000!

Want to drive across state lines to visit friends? Sorry, no reciprocity, you’ll be spending some time in prison if you drive through certain states. Don’t worry, your rights aren’t being infringed! You can take the bus!

Ever wonder what that fist fight you got into years ago has to do with your driving? Well NOTHING, but as a convicted felon you will NEVER be able to drive ever again, nor own a car, nor ride in somebody else’s car!

The list could go on for that side, feel free to ad on in the comments!

Next up Lt. Col Bateman (remember that traitor?) is making a very solid false equivalency. He’s talking about the training (which frankly doesn’t exist in all states. Sure you need a bunch of training to get your learner’s permit, but that’s not a REQUIREMENT to get a DL, really you only need to be of a certain age and pass the written and road test and you’re all set. Still this is to drive on PUBLIC roads. To own a car, or drive on private property you need no licensing at all.

Of course the Mommies are demanding action….but what are they calling for? Seems they mostly are calling for Universal Background checks, and private businesses to ban (or at least make a request) carry in their establishments.

What does this have to do with anything? Why nothing, of course!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Images of the Antis: Guns and Cars

  1. The_Jack says:

    Whenever a gun controller says “We need to treat guns like cars” they’re really just saying “Why can’t we have mandatory insurance and registration for every single gun!”

    Because they’re clearly showing they’re unfamiliar with car *or* gun laws.

    Hell Baterman’s own quote shows the bait and switch. Note that he lists the requirements to *drive* a car on public roads, and compares them to the requirements to *own* a gun.

    The fact that I can rent a car in NJ on my Indiana license, drive it in NYC, and then return it to a dealership in Boston, shows how “let’s treat guns like cars” would really pan out.

  2. Jack/OH says:

    I’m not sure the firearms-motor vehicles-operator’s licensing compare ‘n’ contrast gig is doing anyone any good. Apples vs. cement mix. Context, motive, theory of regulatory behavior, all seem to me different. Firearms and motor vehicles are way different from one another, and the terms “registration” and “licensing” have way different operational meanings when applied to both.

    I saw Lawdog’s post a while back, and, yup, he’s right.

    For another bogus, inflammatory compare ‘n’ contrast, try this made-up PSA: “Surgeons are licensed only after twelve years of intense training to save lives. Why can you buy a gun that can take a life in a thoughtless instant without instruction and without licensing? On what planet does that actually make sense?”

    Opposition to certification, registration, and licensing schemes of all sorts has a pretty honorable history. See, e. g., economist Milton Friedman.

  3. lucusloc says:

    I have more official training for my CHL than for my DL. For my DL I have 3 hours from a certified teacher, a 1 hour road test, a 15 min exam and 30 min or so of paperwork. Only the road test and the exam were required. For my CHL I have 4 hours of class time and 2 hours range time and a little more than an hour of paperwork.

    My DL is universal (even allowing me to drive in other countries with the proper paperwork!)

    My CHL is limited to this state, and a handful of others that explicitly recognize this permit.

    I agree, lets make CHLs more like DLs (or abolish CHLs altogether, since technically driving is not a fundamental right, but defending yourself with arms is).

  4. Archer says:

    It’s a total false equivalency, even in the image:
    “Can someone explain to me why you have to take 20 hours of classroom instruction, 20 hours of practical instruction, by certified teachers, and then pass an extensive written exam and a road test to be allowed to drive a car, but you can legally buy a gun without so much as a single second of instruction?” (emphasis added)

    All other objections aside (instruction required for student drivers, not all drivers, etc.), the fundamental logical error is that driving a car is analogous to carrying a gun, not buying a gun. You don’t need “so much as a single second of instruction” – nor any kind of license or background check – to buy a car.

    Also, Bateman is apparently unaware of the “Emily Gets Her Gun” series/book, wherein journalist Emily Miller chronicles precisely what it takes to navigate Washington, D.C.’s gun laws. Classroom training required, live fire training required, before you can even buy a gun, and no training is offered in the District; Emily had to go to Virginia to get training. And that scheme is patently unconstitutional. Bateman’s just a standard whiny anti-gun PR flack.

    And the photo source, the “Jordan Davis trial”, is a non-starter: Michael Dunn was convicted for the shooting and will die in jail (Life plus 60 years, served consecutively, per Florida’s “10-20-Life” sentencing law). Bad example, but nice try!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well first, antis would LOVE for the whole nation to be like DC’s horrible gun procurement and carry laws…well at least as a stepping stone to banning guns entirely.

      Also the antis don’t see the Jordan Davis murder the same as us. We see it as how the system works. Murder somebody and you die in prison, either of old age or of state-administered lethal measures. The antis see it as the FAILURE of the system. I use the quip “If only guns were as illegal as murder, nobody would be murdered with guns”, but really they see it that way. If somebody is killed with a gun, obviously there wasn’t enough gun control in place.

      Of course they ignore that if guns were totally disappeared, violent criminals would do OTHER things, like stab people. So then they need to talk about banning knives, much like the UK is doing currently. Next up would be bans on steel toed boots, clubs, and building implements/materials, etc.

      Only AFTER damn near EVERYTHING but marshmallows and cotton balls are banned (and the former probably would be banned because diabetes kills more people than guns) would the antis even consider banning CRIMINALS….which is our starting point…

  5. Braden Lynch says:

    I looked and looked and could not find in the Constitution the right to drive.

    I did find one saying the government should [bleep] off before making any rules about (fire)arms.

    This LTC Bateman is a disgrace and soils the uniform. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution and then goes out and savages it. I guess his next trick will be to repeal the Third Amendment so he can have free room and board wherever he goes.

  6. Cargosquid says:

    So….. Bateman is STILL ignoring the UCMJ by putting his rank in his name while being a political activist. It would be a shame if he gets a court martial.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      If it were a just world, he would. Still Esquire Magazine isn’t quite an “underground publication”, I assume UCMJ has read his shit, and don’t feel the need to boot him, or reprimand him. Also it’s not like the .mil is even REMOTELY pro-gun. They let Ft. Hood get turned into a blood bath TWICE, as well as the Washington Navy yard, and never once contemplated their gun policy, be it private gun ownership, or just letting soldiers, or even just officers pack a sidearm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *