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.
Kind of a goofy poll on a gun forum.
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'll argue with you when I get to a bigger monitor. By the time I get to the end I've forgotten the beginning
We can start with this one.So, what’s the question we’re going to argue about?
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.Fist off, PRINCIPLE.
See? I get that argument, but principally, and with all due respect, that is also the argument for gun control. "You can keep and bear arms as much as you want, just have to keep them on your property."
That's my point.
If we go that route, then I can have a machine gun, or tank, or mortar etc. on my property and the government has no say so on that. To take this a step further, if we are going to license and register guns like cars, then I can carry a gun in any state at any time. I am not favoring gun registration, just going with the thread.See? I get that argument, but principally, and with all due respect, that is also the argument for gun control. "You can keep and bear arms as much as you want, just have to keep them on your property."
That's my point.
If we go that route, then I can have a machine gun, or tank, or mortar etc. on my property and the government has no say so on that. To take this a step further, if we are going to license and register guns like cars, then I can carry a gun in any state at any time. I am not favoring gun registration, just going with the thread.
Not without permission and paying the tax, and only if they are old.I'm pretty sure that you can....
Roads existed before Rome decided the government should have a monopoly on them.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.
The 2nd amendment is supposed to be an inalienable right. There is no right to drive a car.
I guess I should have been clearer. Currently I can have any vehicle I want on my property and drive it around with no license needed. But to have certain weapons I need permission of the government. If we say you need to register and license firearms like vehicles then I can have any firearm regardless of size, date of manufacture and no tax stamp needed.Not without permission and paying the tax, and only if they are old.
Roads existed before Rome decided the government should have a monopoly on them.
I don't like it, and I generally don't think I should have to license and register it, but I don't think it's inherently unconstitutional. The power to license/regulate is delegated to the states if they want it.Exactly. I agree with laws and rules. I shouldn't be able to drive my car through someone's yard to get to work faster. I agree with most of the rules of the road. They're logical to me. What I don't agree with, is that I should have to pay and obtain a license, TO USE my car on a public road.
NOW, I used to not care about that or even think of it much, but PRINCIPALLY, if they can make me do that for cars, why not my guns? Just because it's in the bill of rights? Give me a break. The same people who don't care about your UNlisted rights, are the same ones who don't care about your LISTED rights.
It's sad we have to look at the constitution and go "oh... well that's not in there... OH THAT ONE IS! Uhhhh guys it doesn't say I have the right to ______". It's ridiculous.
So this leads to me questioning, what is the point of needing a license and registration. The conclusion? Well, if you agree we need a license to PROVE that we know how to operate a car, well, then where does it stop?
Anyway, I am ranting. I need to look more into the purpose behind license and registration of cars.
This is all a thought thread. Let's keep the emotions out of it.
Hahaha damn... I’m not even gonna fix that now.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.