tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post6489930617978519226..comments2023-11-27T02:17:22.859-06:00Comments on The LawDog Files: We license cars ... yackyackyackLawDoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-34749813654374782442018-09-19T00:59:51.489-05:002018-09-19T00:59:51.489-05:00Brilliant arguments but you should read this can i...Brilliant arguments but you should read this <a href="http://www.carinsurancequotestexas.us/blog/insured-without-license/" rel="nofollow">can i get insurance without a license?</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406549725800787784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-71371734330716305112018-04-18T16:50:45.243-05:002018-04-18T16:50:45.243-05:00There is another thing, LD, though you may have co...There is another thing, LD, though you may have considered then declined to include it for one reason or another.<br /><br />The other thing about gun licensing like car licensing is that if you meet the (minimal, as you note) requirements, you get the card as fast as the card machine can make it, and the clerk can't say anything about it beyond "have a nice day". Nowhere in any legislation or regulation about driver licensing I've heard of (which admittedly isn't an all-inclusive list) is the phrase "may issue" to be found.<br /><br />No slow-walking the application for a <i>de facto</i> ban (*cough*Illinois*cough*), no clerk deciding that even though you meet the stated requirements they won't issue the license because Reasons[tm], and no refusing to license anyone who isn't rich, famous, or politically connected (see CCW in many leftist enclaves, f'rex).Nohbodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06798562356257152626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-83797716687606719052015-10-06T07:44:06.215-05:002015-10-06T07:44:06.215-05:00Cheers.Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-82990029478708907172015-10-06T07:39:55.824-05:002015-10-06T07:39:55.824-05:00No, it's from the constitution / scotus.No, it's from the constitution / scotus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-15723694334469308532015-10-06T07:37:21.045-05:002015-10-06T07:37:21.045-05:00So it was a legal gun. So it was a legal gun. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-59054539865422226492014-06-15T11:49:08.005-05:002014-06-15T11:49:08.005-05:00The proper and immediate remedy for a crazy guy wi...The proper and immediate remedy for a crazy guy with a gun is one or more sane guy(s) with a gun.<br /><br />The proper and immediate remedy for a criminal with a gun is one or more law abiding guy(s) with gun(s).<br /><br />Licenses don't stop crazy, nor criminal. Sane and honest people stop them, and can quickly escalate to deadly force if necessary, if they have a gun. That is why anyone who advocates licenses for owning guns is a liar.<br /><br />In the absence of guns, sane honest people have a substantial disadvantage compared to a crazy person, or a criminal. That is why anyone who advocates restrictions on the ability of honest sane people to own and carry guns is a liar.Don Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06057058763094040058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-32680429931917630702014-06-14T15:55:45.610-05:002014-06-14T15:55:45.610-05:00OK, anon, so you admit that you want more licensin...OK, anon, so you admit that you want more licensing for guns than we do for cars?<br /><br />Cars are not an enumerated right, so sod off.<br /><br />And do try to do more than a dumbassed ad hominem when you try to argue.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-69814843426686483282013-11-03T12:40:47.190-06:002013-11-03T12:40:47.190-06:00This post makes even more sense if you read it in ...This post makes even more sense if you read it in the voice of an "old timey prospector."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-47765235895738773082013-11-03T12:40:37.209-06:002013-11-03T12:40:37.209-06:00This post makes even more sense if you read it in ...This post makes even more sense if you read it in the voice of an "old timey prospector."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-49348467811001469682012-12-19T14:45:40.777-06:002012-12-19T14:45:40.777-06:00You've just eviscerated an argument that no on...You've just eviscerated an argument that no one is making.<br /><br />Exactly no one has suggested: "Let's take the laws about licensing cars, replace all instances of the word 'car' and replace it with 'gun' and then pass that new law.<br /><br />That is obviously idiotic.<br /><br />When someone says "Guns should be licensed like cars are," what they are saying is, "Cars are an example of an item that requires a license. Let's also require a specialized license for guns in a way that resembles but does not exactly mimic car licenses."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-90256056501590767702012-08-02T17:31:51.292-05:002012-08-02T17:31:51.292-05:00Scott says,
"So the gun nutters yell and sc...Scott says,<br /><br /><br />"So the gun nutters yell and scream and want to arm everybody. Unregulated gun ownership! Guns in schools! This will stop the nutters from... uh... possessing a gun and killing people? Really? "<br /><br /><br />Quite the contrary. The more of these incidents that take place the more everyone with an ounce of IQ is starting to see that there is almost no way to preserve even the most minuscule aspects of liberty and still prevent psychotics from obtaining weapons of destruction. Furthermore, guns, even in the hands of well trained individuals, are not effective weapons for killing large numbers of people. Prior to 9/11 the single largest mass murder in NYC history was carried out with a plastic can found in an alley, ten dollars of gasoline and a match. Look up the happyland fire. Anyone that strikes out to kill as many people as possible with a gun is not just crazy, they are too stupid to choose an appropriate tool. <br /><br />The saying that you can't legislate away crazy has never been more true than it is in the world today. But some people just need to say or do SOMETHING even if it is totally without reason and prevents honest people from defending themselves against criminals that the law cannot.<br /><br /><br />Scott, you are a liar.Reluctant Lemmingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-76083800420389202582008-08-24T00:26:00.000-05:002008-08-24T00:26:00.000-05:00I'll have to go put on some shoes, so I can take o...I'll have to go put on some shoes, so I can take one off and bang it on the table. (Perhaps the other on one of these deluded gun-grabbers)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-83027759329851237402007-05-08T15:26:00.000-05:002007-05-08T15:26:00.000-05:00"And a gun's untoward use and consequences are so ..."And a gun's untoward use and consequences are so severe (we had a sitting president speak at a memorial because of the effects of two guns-- TWO! AND ONE A .22!) that as a society, we owe it to ourselves to come to some resolution on how gun malice and depravity can be subdued. (I say subdued because there will never be a day when guns aren't killing people.)"<BR/><BR/>Yes, guns kill people every day, as do cars, swimming pools, monkey wrenches, ropes, and rape-victim pantyhose. (Cars and swimming pools, indeed, cause far more deaths each day than guns do.)<BR/><BR/>"Guns kill people. That's one of their functions. A small percentage of people do nefarious things with guns, meaning kill people, like the gun was intended."<BR/><BR/>And yes, guns kill people. That is their function. But there are times when it is appropriate to kill people: when the safety of your life and others are threatened.<BR/><BR/>Are we really willing to believe that killing the Virginia Tech gunman as soon as possible would have been a bad thing? Or a burgler with a knife, or a kidnapper or rapist? I would say yes, but not as bad as letting these people have their way!<BR/><BR/>We *do* need to come to terms with guns: we need to appreciate their value for self defense, and treat them accordingly. We need to be well-trained in their use and safety as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-60437201364007402762007-05-05T09:55:00.000-05:002007-05-05T09:55:00.000-05:00Let's license cars like we do guns. Because cars k...Let's license cars like we do guns. Because cars kill more people, but the standards for operating one are much lower.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-25748580808365195562007-04-23T11:08:00.000-05:002007-04-23T11:08:00.000-05:00Could you have missed the point any further if you...Could you have missed the point any further if you had tried deliberately? Or <I>are</I> you deliberately missing the point?<BR/>Seriously.<BR/><BR/>Once more from the top:<BR/><BR/>Gun-grabbers say, "We license cars, why can't we license guns?"<BR/><BR/>I say, "Fine, here's how we license cars, these are the penalties involved, and these are the conditions. Let us do what you say and license guns the same way."<BR/><BR/>I then point out that if we were to license guns the same as cars -- the way the gun-grabbers <I>say</I> they want to do, it would be a $90 ticket to get caught carrying a gun without your license, that every child would be given training and offered a license in high school, so on and so forth.<BR/><BR/>And you come back asking, "What laws do you support?"<BR/><BR/>*blink, blink*<BR/><BR/>Have you even <I>read</I> what I posted? Or did you read the first sentence and leap to conclusions? Did someone e-mail you Cliff Notes or something?<BR/><BR/><B>You say let's license guns like cars. Fine, let us license guns like cars. Let us keep the same kind of licensing, and let us keep the same kind of penalties for guns as we do cars.</B>LawDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-40051925504613439512007-04-23T00:49:00.000-05:002007-04-23T00:49:00.000-05:00Your argument, then, is that laws that are violate...Your argument, then, is that laws that are violated should not be laws. You would abandon licensing of drivers and registraion of cars and insurance requirements because they don't always work. A society without regulation of cars and driving would be no worse than society today, you suggest.<BR/><BR/>I think that all hell would break loose on the roads, but you have a sunnier view of human nature. Good for you. I wonder, though, what laws you do support? Laws against theft or assault? Not if your standard is "if it doesn't work *always*, it's not a law worth having."<BR/><BR/>So, please address the bigger question. What laws are worth having?<BR/><BR/>I'll leave the ad hominem arguments to you. They don't interest me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01330306977759726603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-3584782057213746292007-04-22T21:33:00.000-05:002007-04-22T21:33:00.000-05:00Cars are registered, and must be regularly inspect...<I>Cars are registered, and must be regularly inspected for safety.</I><BR/><BR/>And what happens if you don't register your car? It's a $90 citation -- if you don't get a warning. Same with the inspection.<BR/><BR/><I>Drivers are licensed, and must demonstrate some competence.</I><BR/><BR/>Once. Usually by a nervous teenager with four hours of Drivers Ed behind him. Drivers Education -- your "competence" -- is offered to every high school student in every school in this land.<BR/><BR/><I>A driver must demonstrate financial responsibility for damages he might cause in his car, by buying insurance.</I><BR/><BR/>Or by filing a bond with the State Treasurer. But if a driver gets caught driving without insurance -- it's a citation.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyone arguing for treating guns like cars is arguing for shooters licensing and gun registration and inspections and proof of financial responsibility.</I><BR/><BR/>None of which is required for cars which don't leave private property. So, you're arguing that if I don't intend to take my guns off of private property, you won't require licensing and all that jazz?<BR/><BR/>Plus, violating all of the things you mentioned nets you a ticket <I>if</I> you get caught, and <I>if</I> the officer wishes to cite you. So, you're arguing that violating all of the above with guns would just be citations or warnings?<BR/><BR/><I>You can't take just a fraction of the proposal and beat it to death - not in an honest discussion, anyway.</I><BR/><BR/>If one part of your hypothesis is invalid, <I>all</I> of your hypothesis is invalid. That's pretty much one of the basic laws of logic -- so, yes, I <I>can</I> take a part of your proposal and beat it to death.<BR/><BR/><I>I think guns-as-cars works because insurance companies won't write policies for crazies, for fear of financial ruin.</I><BR/><BR/>Since insurance companies aren't necessary to show proof of financial responsibility -- so what? File a bond with the State Treasurer -- or go without and risk getting a citation.<BR/><BR/><I>If you want to argue with this, try a thorough and mature argument next time.</I><BR/><BR/>We've been arguing you gun grabbers in a mature and polite fashion since 1968 -- and what has our maturity and politeness gotten us? A useless Assault Weapons Ban; a Brady Law which no one ever arrests for violating; stupid import bans; so on and so forth.<BR/><BR/><I>We </I>have been arguing with courtesy and civility while your side shrieks, wails, calls our side murderers, berates our people on national TeeVee and relies on emotional outbursts to make points rather than logic -- and what has our courtesy and civility gotten us? Losses.<BR/><BR/>Bugger that. Insults seem to work for y'all, so by God I'm taking a page from y'alls playbook.LawDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-15813350512631915012007-04-22T20:00:00.000-05:002007-04-22T20:00:00.000-05:00Doug "Cars are registered, and must be regularly ...Doug<BR/> <BR/>"Cars are registered, and must be regularly inspected for safety."<BR/><BR/>Not in my state. Your mileage may vary. Aren't those auto inspection stations more a handout to the operators than a safety requirement? Also, a registration isn't required if the vehicle never leaves private property.<BR/><BR/>"Drivers are licensed, and must demonstrate some competence."<BR/><BR/> Yeah. And the level of competence demonstrated by a 16 year old newby driver versus that of a firearms enthusiast proves what, exactly? <BR/><BR/>"A driver must demonstrate financial responsibility for damages he might cause in his car, by buying insurance."<BR/><BR/> So you are saying that if I have insurance, I needn't face criminal charges if I negligently shoot someone?<BR/><BR/>"Anyone arguing for treating guns like cars is arguing for shooters licensing and gun registration and inspections and proof of financial responsibility. You can't take just a fraction of the proposal and beat it to death - not in an honest discussion, anyway."<BR/><BR/> Ah, no. Inspections are neither universally mandated nor required. You take one test for your license, and thats' it. Forever after the only competence you must demonstrate is in paying for a renewal. <BR/><BR/>"I think guns-as-cars works because insurance companies won't write policies for crazies, for fear of financial ruin."<BR/><BR/> Lord KNOWS there are no uninsured drivers on the roads, so I can't possibly argue this one.<BR/><BR/>"If you want to argue with this, try a thorough and mature argument next time."<BR/><BR/> Sounds like good advice. Say, you heard the one about how insults are the last refuge, etc. etc?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-44520026883638417462007-04-22T15:15:00.000-05:002007-04-22T15:15:00.000-05:00Cars vs guns:Cars are registered, and must be regu...Cars vs guns:<BR/><BR/>Cars are registered, and must be regularly inspected for safety.<BR/>Drivers are licensed, and must demonstrate some competence.<BR/>A driver must demonstrate financial responsibility for damages he might cause in his car, by buying insurance.<BR/><BR/>Anyone arguing for treating guns like cars is arguing for shooters licensing and gun registration and inspections and proof of financial responsibility. You can't take just a fraction of the proposal and beat it to death - not in an honest discussion, anyway.<BR/><BR/>I think guns-as-cars works because insurance companies won't write policies for crazies, for fear of financial ruin.<BR/><BR/>If you want to argue with this, try a thorough and mature argument next time.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01330306977759726603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-54441038211974623412007-04-20T22:05:00.000-05:002007-04-20T22:05:00.000-05:00Ointment.Or penicillen.Ointment.<BR/><BR/>Or penicillen.LawDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05232684877582591461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-7548110508513083912007-04-20T16:18:00.000-05:002007-04-20T16:18:00.000-05:00rashrashMoliter Manushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14552935372376951616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-12616826149314024702007-04-20T11:37:00.000-05:002007-04-20T11:37:00.000-05:00scott from oregon would have us all use the "Safe,...scott from oregon would have us all use the "Safe, Non-Violent, Limp (SNiVeL) Technique" for self defense. Developed by Josh Suckerman.<BR/><BR/>Assume a safe (S) fetal position, preferably under a table or other cover, while remaining non-violent (NV). Moves that could be interpreted as "self-defense" might only serve to further provoke your assailant. Offer no resistance.<BR/><BR/>Become limp (L) while begging and groveling for your life. This is no time for pride or courage, so cry like a girl! This will always serve better than a firearm, which would only inject more violence into the situation. Stay limp until your assailant has finished beating you like a rented mule. He will eventually tire from pummeling you mercilessly and move on to a more entertaining endeavor, such as beating your children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-1401180371955577412007-04-20T11:01:00.000-05:002007-04-20T11:01:00.000-05:00Scott says:"Somewhere amidst all of this bravado a...Scott says:<BR/>"Somewhere amidst all of this bravado and stupidity...there are concrete things we as a society can DO to reduce the detrimental effects of flesh tearing bullets."<BR/><BR/>He also implies that ridding society of all guns is not possible. <BR/>Then: "So the gun nutters yell and scream and want to arm everybody."<BR/><BR/>So, let me summarize: Removing all guns is not possible. Arming everyone is not going to happen. (Freedom of choice and all that)<BR/><BR/>I'd like to hear, from Scott, the "concrete things" we CAN do, so we can discuss and make some progress, instead of simply denigrating people who hold an opinion different from his.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-44748814983642523752007-04-20T03:11:00.000-05:002007-04-20T03:11:00.000-05:00There is nothing brilliant about taking two dispar...There is nothing brilliant about taking two disparate societal functions and then demonstrating they are not the same. Hell, the song "One thing is not like the other one..." from Sesame Street was running through my brain the whole time I read what amounted to a waste of time.<BR/><BR/>Yes. You are correct. Gun licensing and driver's licenses are two completely different things. You get a gold star and ten minutes extra at recess to try and learn to tie your shoes for that little entourage of low IQ verbiage...<BR/><BR/>It still doesn't change the fact that some nutter went into a gun shop, slapped down his credit card, loaded himself up and went on a killing spree...<BR/><BR/>I remember my days in the NRA, sitting there amongst men who schemed and connived and politicized, trying to figure out all the little things they could do or say to "win" the gun control argument.<BR/><BR/>Not once did the conversation head off into such discourse as "What might be best for society at large?"<BR/><BR/>It was always about "How can I keep "them" from taking away my "God given" right to own a gun!?"<BR/><BR/>I find that sad, really. In my personal family, a gun has never saved a life. Guns have taken the lives of distant direct or indirect family members and friends, though. Through accident and carelessness and criminality and internal strife between two people, I've seen guns in action.<BR/><BR/>A gun is a tool deisgned to rip flesh and maim and kill. It has no other function. (Target shooting is really about learning how to "practice" maiming and killing, so don't even...)<BR/><BR/>And a gun's untoward use and consequences are so severe (we had a sitting president speak at a memorial because of the effects of two guns-- TWO! AND ONE A .22!) that as a society, we owe it to ourselves to come to some resolution on how gun malice and depravity can be subdued. (I say subdued because there will never be a day when guns aren't killing people.)<BR/><BR/>The gun banning fanatics just want all guns removed from society, and this would of course solve the problem. Trouble is, the problem is already the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag.<BR/><BR/>So the gun nutters yell and scream and want to arm everybody. Unregulated gun ownership! Guns in schools! This will stop the nutters from... uh... possessing a gun and killing people? Really?<BR/><BR/>I could turn this into one of those manifestos that nobody reads unless I kill a bunch of people, so I think I'll cut it short.<BR/><BR/>Guns kill people. That's one of their functions. A small percentage of people do nefarious things with guns, meaning kill people, like the gun was intended.<BR/><BR/>Lots of good people carry guns and don't kill people. In fact, they look pretty silly walking around the grocery store trying to buy frozen corn, and not all that comfortable.<BR/><BR/>Somewhere amidst all of this bravado and stupidity (Stir up a nutter and what'll you get? Mixed nuts) there are concrete things we as a society can DO to reduce the detrimental effects of flesh tearing bullets. <BR/><BR/>Now I don't know about you nutters who think a "God" grants gun ownership rights, but I am sure there are some reasonable people who can drop all of the horseshit that has plagued (and hindered) this discussion for the last thirty years who would be willing to come up with some solutions to the basic problem that the US has relating to death by firearm. I mean, we're smart. Why are we leading the western world in this category? Why can't it be the bloody frogs?<BR/><BR/>Some amusing quotes of y'alls...<BR/><BR/>"I sure don't want somebody like that getting a CCW. I hold a CCW and sure as fire don't want bonafide idiots carrying guns." <BR/><BR/>"Well said. Having all the permits and drivers licenses can't stop a drunk driver, how will it stop a crazy kid like this one in Va.? "<BR/><BR/>"The people who license drivers do so in order to enable everyone to drive, with a minimal degree of skill and safety."Scott from Oregonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01331284708780612453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22957834.post-84396937379634928412007-04-19T12:35:00.000-05:002007-04-19T12:35:00.000-05:00"augres@gmail.com said... Excellent post!Speaking ...<I>"augres@gmail.com said... <BR/>Excellent post!<BR/>Speaking of the enablement of obtaining a driver's license:<BR/><BR/>In Virginia, The Virginia Tech. killer, even though a foriegn national, was able to legally purchase a gun, BECAUSE he had a Virginia driver's license!"</I><BR/><BR/>But, being a legal permanent US resident, he was a US national, even though he was still a South Korean citizen.<BR/><BR/>Don't confuse foreign citizenship with being (only) a foreign national.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com