Posted on 03/06/2018 9:34:15 AM PST by rktman
Before we discuss violence with guns, I'd like to run a couple of questions by you. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every day nearly 30 Americans die in motor vehicle crashes that involve drunk driving. What kind of restrictions should be placed on automobile ownership? Should there be federal background checks in order for people to obtain a driver's license or purchase a car?
The FBI's 2015 Uniform Crime Report shows that nearly three times more people were stabbed or hacked to death than were killed with shotguns and rifles combined. The number of shotgun and rifle deaths totaled 548. People who were stabbed or hacked to death totaled 1,573. Should there be federal background checks and waiting periods for knife purchases?
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
1. There already are restrictions on who can drive a car. It’s called a driver’s license, and is only granted upon passing a basic knowledge test of safe driving.
2. There is no Constitutional guarantee of the right to drive a car.
Love Walter Williams.
REF #2. Yes there is. It’s written right there next to the right to abortions just before CCW permits being required by the 2nd amendment. Do some homework. LOL! Sorry.
The issue is never the issue.
The issue is always the Revolution.
A HS got shot up? Great!! Now we can disarm the people!!
Hidden agenda or ignorance - that’s always a tough one with most lefties.
One more for you, rktman, I recently read a statistic that said the last 26 of 2 deadliest shootings were done by people who grew up WITH NO FATHER.
‘course the feminazi’s in big media won’t let that little tidbit see the light of day. They just care so much for the children...
The “agenda” is no longer hidden.
Knife control now!
5.56mm
“1. There already are restrictions on who can drive a car. It’s called a driver’s license, and is only granted upon passing a basic knowledge test of safe driving.”
The restrictions only apply to public property as far as I know. One can drive on private property without a driver’s license most any where as far as I know.
And you don’t necessarily have to register or license a vehicle if it’s only driven on private property.
That’s 26 out of the last 27.
Sorry for the omission.
I do believe you are correct in most locales. If you purchase a vehicle and plan to only use in on your enormous ranch, no tags needed. Besides which, the whole licensing thing, inspections etc are just money making machines that control the public. The funds sure don’t seem to do much for the public roads.
Rather it comes under the unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness, and I want one of those Highway Patrol Pursuit Cars.
HellCat or farmtruck. ;-)
Kick God out of society and schools and witness what is currently happening with the “gun problem”. Or better said, the morality problem as Mr. Williams puts it.
Glad Walter didn’t actually retire when he first said he was going to...
Walter Williams - a true hero of ‘deplorables’ everywhere...
As a motorcyclist residing in what is arguably the most motorcycle friendly city in the nation, I’d dearly love to see automobile usage requirements tightened up. Item #1 should be no cellphone usage while driving. Apart from the time of day, it is difficult to distinguish a drunk driver from a cellphone distracted driver. Both show the same handicaps; no lane discipline, inconsistent speed control, and general ignorance of their surroundings.
Keeping me on my toes. It is the price I pay for the freedom to ride.
1) And yet, States hand ‘em out to illegals like candy, refuse to take ‘em away from repeat offenders, etc. Said license doesn’t stop anyone from NOT driving w/o said license, or insurance, or under the influence, or even validate proficiency (IE: I don’t recall, as one get OLDER, any retest vs. degradation of reflexes, eyesight, etc.)
1b) Said license does NOT preclude anyone from buying the fastest, the heaviest, the model w/ the most horsepower, etc.
1c) Said license isn’t even required for private property.
2) INCORRECT. The Constitution doesn’t lay out Rights, it only acknowledges SOME as it pertains to Federalism. IMO, the Right of Travel, like the 2nd, does not negate w/ the advance of technology/options. Only People have Rights; govt has powers\authority.
Personally, I reject your premise. We have, by default, allowed govt to usurp and turn into a ‘privilege’. Whether by foot, horse, bike, car or other, one is still still free to move about w/o govt interference.
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.