Posted on 01/25/2017 1:18:17 PM PST by Boomer
In one of the first pro-gun actions of his administration, President Donald Trump is expected to shortly move to revoke Barack Obamas illegal actions to effectively outlaw gun collecting.
Obama’s anti-gun “executive action” was announced on January 6, 2016 – in the wake of Obama’s unsuccessful attempt to scapegoat law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a Muslim terrorist in San Bernardino.
Obama’s action was implemented as a “clarification” because he knew that his lawless moves could never pass muster under the rule-making procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at gunowners.org ...
Didn’t he limit the import of some ammo types?
Looks like the obie admin conned us again.
Well, if nothing else, this clarifies the entire matter as being shut down and put to bed. Now on to other EO’s that actually did happen and weren’t a smoke screen eh.
“GPS is passive, no need for the car to broadcast its location.”
Oh, I’ll just bet that the requirement for every vehicle, if not every person, to squawk IFF will be instituted very soon.
Not allowing a person the right to bear arms is denying them the right to self protection.
Reverse Obama on gun imports!
Let’s get those Korea issued M1 Garand’s back in American hands where they belong!
Make Gun Ownership Great Again!
Denying someone the means to travel is restricting their movement.
Always makes me think ... how can these gun restriction people fail to understand the meaning of ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.’ The phrase closes the discussion and our framers of the Constitution meant just that.
No it is not. They can take a bus, get a ride or, take a train, a taxi or walk. They are not required to stay where they are.
Driving is not a right. Nor should it be.
“They can take a bus, get a ride or, take a train, a taxi or walk.”
They can’t load up the truck and move to Beverly Hills.
The alternatives you offer are unsatisfactory for any number of reasons, including practicality and expense. As a matter of fact, they are all “public transportation” with the exception of walking.
If you really want to tell America that walking is the equivalent of driving, especially long distance...well, I think you’ll get the appropriate reaction.
The pioneers had the Conestoga, the dust bowl refugees had Mr. Ford’s contraption, and 20th century America had the automobile. Now, the leftard weasels are on the verge of taking them away, for no better reason than their wackadoodle greentard delusions.
I think driving is a human right, and I’d like to see an amendment to recognize that.
“Let’s get those Korea issued M1 Garand’s back in American hands where they belong”
Oh! Me, too. Me an M-1 too.
Also owning a car is by no means a minimal expense. Taking Mega Bus and even flying is often times cheaper than driving a car, depending on destination and travel time.
I can purchase a Mega Bus ticket between two major cities, say Cleveland to Chicago, over 350 miles apart for less than $30 dollars. I can not even get close to driving 350 miles for that minimal expense. Between the cost of the vehicle, gas, insurance and travel time it is expected that every mile costs around $.60. 350 miles in a car costs about $210 in expenses. The gas alone for a vehicle that gets 25 MPH is $35 with gas at $2.50 gal. That is before the vehicle cost of purchase, depreciation, upkeep and insurance costs.
If there is a right to drive, is there also a right to own a car. If so and one is unable to afford a car, should the government provide a car for your use, similar to how they will provide a lawyer for your defense?
If a car and the right to drive one is a right, how about horses?
At the time of the Constitution there where really only two forms of transportation on land. The most popular form was walking, the desired form was riding a horse or having a horse pull you about in a cart or wagon.
If a personal form of transportation was a right, why didn't the framers of the Constitution wright an amendment into the Bill of Rights that required everyone be provided a horse or other suitable form of transportation?
Your argument is one of personal desire. A personal desire is not a right. it is not unalienable that you do not have a driver's license or a car. The lack of said license or vehicle may cause one more difficulty in moving about, but it doesn't deny ones right to free movement. It doesn't prevent them from travel. It just makes it less convenient.
“Driving is not a right. It is a privilege.”
So you keep saying. Say it as often as you like, you will never make it true.
In the US, if not in leftist minds, that which is not forbidden is allowed. If allowed (rightfully and not as a matter of bad law), it is among the freedoms that we humans enjoy as gifts from the Creator of the universe. What, in your mind, is the difference between such freedoms and a “right?”
“With the exception of Am-track everything I mentioned is a private form of transportation. Trailways, Greyhound and Mega Bus are not public transportation. Taxis are privately owned, as is UBER and Lyft. Even many trains are run as private entities. They can also take a plane.”
To quote wiki, “Public transport (also known as public transportation, public transit, or mass transit) is a shared passenger-transport service which is available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicab, carpooling, or hired buses, which are not shared by strangers without private arrangement.
Public transport modes include city buses, trolleybuses, trams (or light rail) and passenger trains, rapid transit (metro/subways/undergrounds etc) and ferries. Public transport between cities is dominated by airlines, coaches, and intercity rail.”
Now, as a practical matter, even those modes not seen as “public” under this definition are impractical for most purposes and most people.
Few people can afford to take a taxi to work every day, or to charter a plane to take them on vacation. The only thing that makes Americans adequately mobile in the 21st century is the privately owned automobile, and that is useless if the government forbids one to drive.
“Also owning a car is by no means a minimal expense. Taking Mega Bus and even flying is often times cheaper than driving a car, depending on destination and travel time.”
What are you, a leftist? The expense of driving is completely irrelevant to the question of whether mobility, and thus driving, is a right. Don’t change the subject.
“If there is a right to drive, is there also a right to own a car?”
The right to own and maintain a car at your own expense, as with the right to buy a home at your own expense, is so obvious that only the mendacious would bring it up.
“If so and one is unable to afford a car, should the government provide a car for your use, similar to how they will provide a lawyer for your defense?”
As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Recognizing a right to adequate legal representation in cases that might result in the loss of liberty or life does not imply rights in other, completely unrelated areas. Stop wasting time with foolish consistencies.
“At the time of the Constitution”
That is the equivalent of the “only muskets existed in 1789, so the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets” crapola bruited about by the gun grabbers.
“If a personal form of transportation was a right”
Stop trying to change the terms of my argument. It is fundamentally dishonest to put words in someone’s mouth because that argument is easier to rebut than the one actually put forward.
It goes without saying that the Founding Fathers would have agreed that a man has a right to ride a horse that he owns, unless a court or other legally constituted authority makes an exception for good and sufficient cause. A man has a right to ride a horse he owns, and a man has a right to drive a car he owns.
Of course, the Founding Fathers would probably have framed it in the language of liberty rather than “rights.” A man has the freedom to ride a horse he owns, and a man has the freedom to drive a car he owns.
“why didn’t the framers of the Constitution wright an amendment into the Bill of Rights that required everyone be provided a horse or other suitable form of transportation?”
Because they weren’t drooling leftist morons.
“Your argument is one of personal desire.”
Road apples. Mobility is much more important than personal desire. Very often in human history it has been the difference between survival and extermination. Even in the US today it is often the difference between employment and destitution.
“A personal desire is not a right.”
You say that as though you were stating a general principle. What about a personal desire to choose your own religion, or to wed, become a vegetarian, or move to a different state? Does the government have standing to interfere with these freedoms? And, if not, are they not rights?
“it is not unalienable that you do not have a driver’s license or a car.”
Once again, I never said there was a right to own a car. Those are your words, inserted because you think it is easier to deny a right to own a car than to rebut what I actually said.
If an American has an unalienable right to mobility, which he does, then he has an unalienable right to seek and obtain the means by which he becomes mobile, which means that he has a right to buy a car at his own expense. Further, if he has a right to obtain the means of mobility, then he has a right to use those means to go where he wants to go.
“The lack of said license or vehicle may cause one more difficulty in moving about, but it doesn’t deny ones right to free movement.”
So, the government could require us all to wear a ball and chain, because mobility impaired is not mobility denied? I mean, we could still get around—except for young children, the sick, the crippled, and the elderly—so by your standard our free movement would not be denied. We could still get around; it would just be less convenient.
You *really* need to take five or ten years of intensive study and think this through.
Your arguments, though voluminous are just plane retarded.
There is definitely a right to travel freely. The idea that the means to travel are part of that right are not nearly as crazy as the specious right to privacy or the even greater travesty the right to an abortion
I apologize for my nastiness. Though i do not necessarily believe that there is an actual ‘right to drive’ there is certainly a right to travel and therefore the means to travel must be available.
Nice talking with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.