Even After Latest Attack, Liberals Refuse to Support Vehicle Control

[NYcarbineer]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

Cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, moron.

The Courts have established that driving is a right.

Why did the DA tell me it was a privilege? The government could outlaw cars tomorrow, and there wouldn't be squat the courts could do or would do about it

The DA was wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Correct which is why criminals and people with no license or suspended license never drive a vehicle.

 

[bripat9643]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Show me where the Bill of Rights mentions automobiles.

Not relevant.

The Bill of Rights isn't relevant?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are fucking hilarious!

I would never have expected a leftwing douche bag to reveal what he really thinks about the BOR.

 

[bripat9643]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

Cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, moron.

The Courts have established that driving is a right.

Why did the DA tell me it was a privilege? The government could outlaw cars tomorrow, and there wouldn't be squat the courts could do or would do about it

The DA was wrong.

Prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Correct which is why criminals and people with no license or suspended license never drive a vehicle.

No, that is why aggravated operation of motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license in NYS is mandatory jail time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh now you're making up things that I never said. You're really bad at arguing Brifag.

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

What I posted is the logical corollary to what you posted. Why should only cars be banned if they are manufactured solely to kill things? According to your theory, "killing things" is the reason to ban them, not the fact that they are automobiles.

Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend simple logic when you encounter it.

fallacy of a false corollary

Cars serve utilitarian purposes; they are not designed to kill.

Guns are designed to kill; from that purpose, they can be used from other purposes.

You don't even know what a corollary is, Fakey. Whether they serve utilitarian purposes was specifically ruled out by the analogy.

I hope they are feeding you well at the halfway home, bripat, and ask them to check the meds, because you sound screwy. You don't understand the principles of logic, like so many of your friends on the Board. The analogy was false for that reason. If you are going to compare why A and B are similar, you are required to compare why they are not. Vehicles' are made for utilitarian transportation purposes for moving freight and people first. Guns are first and foremost made to destroy and kill. This is why guns and vehicles are subject to regulation: no way around it.

 

[bripat9643]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Correct which is why criminals and people with no license or suspended license never drive a vehicle.

No, that is why aggravated operation of motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license in NYS is mandatory jail time.

If driving is a right, then how can the government suspend your license?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Show me where the Bill of Rights mentions automobiles.

Not relevant.

The Bill of Rights isn't relevant?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are fucking hilarious!

I would never have expected a leftwing douche bag to reveal what he really thinks about the BOR.

For a guy who thinks we shouldn't have any laws you sure are keen to demand excruciating detail in law merely to prove that rights exist.

Start with the 9th Amendment then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Correct which is why criminals and people with no license or suspended license never drive a vehicle.

No, that is why aggravated operation of motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license in NYS is mandatory jail time.

If driving is a right, then how can the government suspend your license?

For the same reason they can take away a felon's right to buy a gun.

 

[bripat9643]

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

What I posted is the logical corollary to what you posted. Why should only cars be banned if they are manufactured solely to kill things? According to your theory, "killing things" is the reason to ban them, not the fact that they are automobiles.

Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend simple logic when you encounter it.

fallacy of a false corollary

Cars serve utilitarian purposes; they are not designed to kill.

Guns are designed to kill; from that purpose, they can be used from other purposes.

You don't even know what a corollary is, Fakey. Whether they serve utilitarian purposes was specifically ruled out by the analogy.

I hope they are feeding you well at the halfway home, bripat, and ask them to check the meds, because you sound screwy. You don't understand the principles of logic, like so many of your friends on the Board. The analogy was false for that reason. If you are going to compare why A and B are similar, you are required to compare why they are not. Vehicles' are made for utilitarian transportation purposes for moving freight and people first. Guns are first and foremost made to destroy and kill. This is why guns and vehicles are subject to regulation: no way around it.

I fear you are reaching the terminal phase of your Alzheimer's disease, Fakey.

 

[bripat9643]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Show me where the Bill of Rights mentions automobiles.

Not relevant.

The Bill of Rights isn't relevant?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are fucking hilarious!

I would never have expected a leftwing douche bag to reveal what he really thinks about the BOR.

For a guy who thinks we shouldn't have any laws you sure are keen to demand excruciating detail in law merely to prove that rights exist.

Start with the 9th Amendment then.

In other words, you can't prove it's a right.

You start with the 9th Amendment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that is why aggravated operation of motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license in NYS is mandatory jail time.

Really now? So what do they get for possessing a gun illegally?

 

[bripat9643]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Correct which is why criminals and people with no license or suspended license never drive a vehicle.

No, that is why aggravated operation of motor vehicle with a suspended or revoked license in NYS is mandatory jail time.

If driving is a right, then how can the government suspend your license?

For the same reason they can take away a felon's right to buy a gun.

Nope. You can't do that without convicting him of a crime. Your license, on the other hand, can be revoked if you fail to pass the eyesight exam. The very fact that you need a license (permission from the government) demonstrates that it isn't a right.

 

[Dr Grump]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

There is vehicle control. You have to have a license for a start. Also, as you say there are traffic accidents. Note, you use the term "accidents", not "deliberates". There is a difference.

That aside, your point is asinine at best. Guns are manufactured to kills things. Usually people. Vehicles are not. What do you do for an encore, compare the number of people killed by drones with boating accidents?

 

[BluesLegend]

I see this thread is mocking leftwits without mercy, carry on.

The far right, as usual, is suffering badly from misunderstanding of the Consitution: nothing new there. They do not want to understand, unlike 93% of the rest of America, that guns can be regulated.

Be thankful we don't intern you traitorous libs in prison work camps.

 

[bripat9643]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

There is vehicle control. You have to have a license for a start. Also, as you say there are traffic accidents. Note, you use the term "accidents", not "deliberates". There is a difference.

That aside, your point is asinine at best. Guns are manufactured to kills things. Usually people. Vehicles are not. What do you do for an encore, compare the number of people killed by drones with boating accidents?

So hunting rifles are engineered to kill people?

You realize, of course, that you're a dumbass who only know how to repeat leftwing talking points. You aren't capable of rational thought.

 

[Dr Grump]

So hunting rifles are engineered to kill people?

You realize, of course, that you're a dumbass who only know how to repeat leftwing talking points. You aren't capable of rational thought.

Where did I specifically say only people. Here, I'll repost the relevant part for you and even bold it. And you call me a dumbarse.

Guns are manufactured to kills things. Usually people.

 

[bripat9643]

So hunting rifles are engineered to kill people?

You realize, of course, that you're a dumbass who only know how to repeat leftwing talking points. You aren't capable of rational thought.

Where did I specifically say only people. Here, I'll repost the relevant part for you and even bold it. And you call me a dumbarse.

Guns are manufactured to kills things. Usually people.

No, not usually people. Only a dumbass would say such a thing.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, not usually people. Only a dumbass would say such a thing.

There are more guns in the world specifically designed to kill people. There are 1 million in North Korea alone - let alone China, Russia, USA...almost every second household in the ME and parts of Africa have a firearm designed to kill people. Every CCW or person with an open carry license have those things specifically to carry a firearm to 'protect' themselves against other people - not rogue caribou..

 

[LeftofLeft]

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.

A gun is a device that propels a projectile down a tube via the detonation of explosive substances. That is a guns purpose. What you are talking about is application and use, which is different.

Bill Ayres and the Weather Underground built devices for the purposes of propelling projectiles via the detonation of explosive substances aimed at police, government, and military yet somehow, he is against gun control. Do you support him?