Found it on Facebook: Analogizing guns and cars

Michael Ramirez pithily sums up all the deliberate or accidental hazards in American life that exceed the risks of rifle (“automatic” or otherwise) violence:

Michael Ramirez on gun violence

As you can see, cars are infinitely more deadly to Americans than are the rifles that are getting Progressives so excited. Those who wish to control guns think they’ve come up with the perfect counterargument to people who point out that we should do something about cars before we do something about guns:

Comparing guns and cars

The above poster is what happens after two generations of public school civics classes that focus obsessively on PC rights, while ignoring incidentals such as the Constitution.  Unlike guns, cars are not protected by the Constitution nor do they fall within the federal government’s purview.  The right to drive is purely a state’s rights issue, and the 10th Amendment therefore gives the individual states a fair amount of leeway.  To the extent cars travel on roads that fall within the Interstate Commerce clause, the federal government has some say too (e.g., speed limits), but cars are no more constitutionally protected than is swimming or bike riding.

Guns, however, are so important that they have their own Amendment.  Think about that for a minute.  With one other exception — which happens to be related to an armed citizenry — all of the other Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights are compound amendments, focusing on myriad issues that fall under a single subject line.  For example, free speech, a free press, and religion that is not subject to government interference, although all staggeringly important, are jumbled together in the 1st Amendment.  The Fifth Amendment has a laundry list of protections a citizen has when the state prosecutes him.

But there are two substantive amendments, both of which involve an individual’s rights against a state’s standing army, that are short and sweet:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To be honest, I don’t see anything about cars anywhere in the Bill of Rights or, indeed, in any other section of the Constitution.

Here’s the really embarrassing thing about that poster likening driver control to gun control — I got it off the Facebook wall of a lawyer.  Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JKB

    Not to mention, to operated a motor vehicle on private property, you are not required to pass a government test, carry insurance, have the vehicle inspected or register it with the government (although titling it does make sense). Nor must you do these things to transport that motor vehicle using public roads.  You only have to do that to operate the vehicle on public roads.  
    But I’m on board with this training issue.  As the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, but we wish to reduce misuse through training, all children should receive mandatory state provided “gun proofing” lessons starting in kindergarten.  Gun proofing would be to expose children to real guns so that they can identify them, know how to handle them if they come across one that is unattended and to remove the taboo allure of firearms.  
    Then in middle school, all children would take a mandatory state provided firearm use and safety instruction similar to that required for children before they can receive a hunting license in many states.  The NRA already has the course materials and can have this up and running post haste.  Congress just needs to mandate this as required curriculum and fund it.
    Then when children come across firearms they’ll have the knowledge and skills to safely deal with the situation and be ready to keep and bear arms safely.  In this manner, the right to keep and bear arms is secured but we know citizens are also familiar with safe firearm handling 

  • Danny Lemieux

    Ramirez could have added swimming pools.
    I think we should ban assault swimming pools along with assault hammers and assault fists.

  • cerumendoc

    To add to JKB’s comments; this is what ‘well regulated’ actually meant to the Founding Fathers.  The term well regulated meant to be well practiced and well drilled.  It could literally mean that the state require firearm proficiency.  It could also mean that the state could require a citizen arm himself and dictate the minimum criteria of to what sort of armament that would be.

  • Mike Devx

    I don’t know, a well-regulated militia (requirement to demonstrate proficiency) is a double-edged sword that could be used to REMOVE guns from hands of the citizenry.  All they’d have to do is continually tighten the requirements.  Suppose you had to assemble your weapon, load the magazine, chamber a round, and then run one mile with it in under eight minutes, then, from a kneeling position, and fire ten rounds and lethally hit, at a range of 80 to 100 yards, four out of five non-essential government employee paper silhouette targets?
    Then the following year, it would be at a range of 100 to 120 yards.  The following year, the ten-round magazine would be replaced by eight.  And if that didn’t work, the silhouettes would be replaced by those of essential government employees, which everyone knows are a much more difficult target.

  • Ymarsakar

    Only if they were swimming pools for rich Democrats perhaps. The point of all this is to simply convince the American people that guns are bad, thus leading to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment should either be gotten rid or merely ignored. They will mostly go with ignore in practical reality, since getting rid of Amendments actually requires some kind of legitimate voting… where the price to buy those votes are worth more than 5 million per head in Chicago districts so are thus not economical to do often. It’s easy to fake up votes in Chicago districts… not so easy to fake up votes in Congress, where you actually have to bribe or blackmail each vote and everyone else knows about it.
    When the voters are convinced, they are convinced to accept the fake election results more readily. Not necessarily due to the Left wanting to convince people so that they can vote to Amend the Constitution, but more of a way to prime the pump for the real operations (Like Fast and Furious).

  • Ymarsakar

    Mike is correct in the long term concerning Leftist strategy and tactics. But it would solve the immediate problem. Solving the immediate problem, will, at least in the short term, remove the demagogue’s weapon from the Leftist propaganda initiatives.
    But it’s far better to destroy the Left’s power base than worry about political policies. But if you don’t want to or can’t touch the Left’s power base, then being on the attack and forcing the Left to defend and adapt to us, is far better than reacting to Leftist propaganda and political attacks about the US Constitution cloaked in the form of public demagoguery.

  • JKB

    Well, I wasn’t considering the “Well-regulated militia” so much as gun safety.  We have a right to keep and bear arms.  An argument can be made that people should be familiar with gun safety even though they have the right to firearms.  So, it makes sense to train all children and immigrants in gun safety.  Not to qualify in marksmanship or anything but just to have the familiarity and training.  It wouldn’t be constitutional to impose a passing requirement judged by a government employee or their surrogate but only provide the instruction in a non-graded format.  The same way we teach children how to stay out of the street and how to safely cross.  They don’t have to pass a government test to be a pedestrian.

  • Ymarsakar

    Have the kiddies be trained by actual competent groups, namely private organizations like Front sight.
    They’ll get the job done. The government knows how to do this because it’s how national defense is handled. They just won’t do it, because they know how effective it would be.

  • Wolf Howling

    The 2nd Amendment didn’t create a right ti keep and bear arms, it is, per Heller, a right that pre-existed the Constitution.  The Constitution merely told the government to keep their hands off.  That being the case, I look forward to much more litigation in the future, assuming the make up of the court doesnt change in the next four years.  I can’t see an assault weapons ban passing muster (pun intended), nor, for that matter, “may issue” concealed carry permit laws.  True, the Court in Heller said it would respect some regulation, but if the ability to “keep and bear arms” is a right that resides in the individual, not the state, than any attempt to place a burden on the individual like states put on car ownership and driving should easily be held unconstitutional.    

  • Mike Devx

    Re JKB #7 and Wolf #9,
    It’s useful to every so often take another look at this excellent video concerning the Swiss.  It’s only about 3 minutes in length and well worth the time.


  • Ymarsakar

    Democrats often tout international coverage as reasons why we should emulate such things. But they were never particularly interested in Europe or women’s rights in Afghanistan. It just served as a unique backdrop for their own domestic power grabs in the US.
    When we consider different cultures and how they make things work, we actually use independent thinking and not cult like dogma, which is very significant in the process methodology.
    Australis and other gun control prohibitionists wish us to emulate them, because they, the UK, and China have such a great restraint on violence. You “only get to be stabbed” they say.
    Somehow, I’m not particularly convinced that we should follow their way or the US government’s way. We have our own personal Way, which is not what other people want us to do specifically. The Swiss has been neutral partially because it’s hard to take them over, and they don’t go out of their way to force other people to emulate them in word or deed. They just serve a banking service and purpose, which is useful to everyone.
    That’s not how the UN and the US Democrats rule, though.