You make some excellent points here. Actually if we want to apply the "guns should be regulated like cars" argument, then any regulation or license requirement for guns would only apply to my use of them on public property. If I am not shooting at a publicly owned gun range, then no regulation should be required, right? Also, there is the pesky problem that we are comparing the regulation of a right to the regulation of a privilege.MaduroBU wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:56 pm<SNIP>
All arguments for gun control are chaff around the only real argument: the wholly subjective belief that guns are bad. My absolute favorite is the argument that we should regulate guns just as we regulate cars, because it makes sense only if someone grossly misunderstands the substance and purpose of a driver's license. A driver's license only covers operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways, which in the context of the gun rights analogy means that gun owners only gained similar rights with the passage of LTC laws in the 1990s and 2000s. The driver's license analogy is in reality only applicable to constitutional carry, but in that case the negligible changes in gun homicide rates after the passage of CC laws begs the question "licensure to what end, other than your personal and subjective hatred of firearms?"
More broadly, I think that pondering how rights that we value need to be regulated to prevent misuse is important, but that cannot happen when one of the parties is negotiating in bad faith. I want all US citizens to vote, but I want to exclude non-citizens, felons and the deceased. I want all US citizens to have the RTKBA, but I want to exclude people who were kicked out of school for being essentially feral. I don't see any discussions on how to safely guarantee rights because every time I hear some version of that phrase, it's Beto talking about how people with a near-zero lifetime risk of killing someone need to give up their AR-15s for the common good.
To the broader point, yes exact regulations need to be specific to the right, but they should be equitable. If the RKBA is dangerous because some otherwise law abiding gun owners cause death through negligence, then the right to vote is infinitely more dangerous because electing idiots to office causes far more death and suffering. If we want to require training for one of these rights, then require the same amount of training for the other. Apply the same test to the ridiculous "may issue" states. Let's do "may issue" for voting and require the applicant to show that they have a good reason why they "need" to vote, a reason that goes above and beyond the reasons all other citizens might have.
In effect, alot of this is about demonstrating the absurdity of these crazy "gun control" ideas by showing how patently absurd they would be if they were applied to any other right.
