EDIT: Apparently the primary reason is because there is a fear of confiscation of weapons, and that fear doesn't exist with cars. I apologize if this thread turned into a flamewar.... most of the flaming (at the time I type this anyway) was my fault.
Why do people oppose gun registration, but not automobile registration?
Point 1: Licenses.
You are required to get a license to drive. No one argues that this is a violation of rights. It's accepted. Now, an automobile does have the abilty to kill people. However, that's not what it's designed for, it's designed for transportation. A gun is intended for the purpose of killing things. You think that if we are to start handing out licenses to use dangerous things, we'd definitely make sure that people were qualified to fire a gun, right? However, people oppose gun licensing, saying that it infringes upon our right to bear arms. I've never heard anyone complain about having his rights violated because of his driver's license.
Point 2: Registration.
You have to register your car. Your car cost 20 times what your gun cost. You use it every day, and you'd be up a creek without it. You use your gun oncea month, and if you were to lose it, you could probably replace it before you had the need to use it again. No one complains that the state keeps a record of where you live, how many and what type of cars you own, or that the state makes you put a metal ID plate on your cars, or that they have the ability to confiscate your car should you fail to pay the registration fee. This also is accepted. However, if the state was to propose simply keeping a record of current addresses ofr gun owners, people would be screaming about a violation of thier rights.
Guns and cars are equally priveate property. Typically cars have a much higher value than guns. Comparatively, there are MANY more restrictions on the use of cars than there are on the use of guns. No one complains about any of these restrictions, yet when it comes to guns, there are lobby groups, protests, and newspaper editorials condemning any of the same practices as for cars. Why are we so complacent to have the government control some of our property, but so ademant about them not controlling other property?
A note on the constitutionality argument:
I'm anticipating responses like 'there's an amendment to the constitution saying you can own guns - there isn't one for cars'. I'm trying to avoid this argument. The way the constitution is set up, we could add an amendment to protect our cars, if we so desired. Also, we could repeal the one protecting weapons. My issue is on WHY have we choesen to protect guns and not cars? Also, although there is no specific reference to automobiles in the constitution, the American people do have a common law right to travel. You only have to contemplate the outcome of putting a law banning travel bewtween states without signed government consent forms before the supreme court in order to see that we do, as Americans, have the right to travel inour country. You may say "We have the right travel, but not neccesarily the right to drive a car... it means on horseback or by foot, like when it was written". In the same fashion, I can say "we have the right to bear arms, but not semi automatic firearms... it means black powder rifles and swords, like when it was written". So, I'd like to leave out the constitutionality argument at this point, and focus on why we protect one type of personal property, but not another.
Also, note that I am neither making a point for gun registration, nor against automobile registration, but simply making an observance of something I noticed.
Why do people oppose gun registration, but not automobile registration?
Point 1: Licenses.
You are required to get a license to drive. No one argues that this is a violation of rights. It's accepted. Now, an automobile does have the abilty to kill people. However, that's not what it's designed for, it's designed for transportation. A gun is intended for the purpose of killing things. You think that if we are to start handing out licenses to use dangerous things, we'd definitely make sure that people were qualified to fire a gun, right? However, people oppose gun licensing, saying that it infringes upon our right to bear arms. I've never heard anyone complain about having his rights violated because of his driver's license.
Point 2: Registration.
You have to register your car. Your car cost 20 times what your gun cost. You use it every day, and you'd be up a creek without it. You use your gun oncea month, and if you were to lose it, you could probably replace it before you had the need to use it again. No one complains that the state keeps a record of where you live, how many and what type of cars you own, or that the state makes you put a metal ID plate on your cars, or that they have the ability to confiscate your car should you fail to pay the registration fee. This also is accepted. However, if the state was to propose simply keeping a record of current addresses ofr gun owners, people would be screaming about a violation of thier rights.
Guns and cars are equally priveate property. Typically cars have a much higher value than guns. Comparatively, there are MANY more restrictions on the use of cars than there are on the use of guns. No one complains about any of these restrictions, yet when it comes to guns, there are lobby groups, protests, and newspaper editorials condemning any of the same practices as for cars. Why are we so complacent to have the government control some of our property, but so ademant about them not controlling other property?
A note on the constitutionality argument:
I'm anticipating responses like 'there's an amendment to the constitution saying you can own guns - there isn't one for cars'. I'm trying to avoid this argument. The way the constitution is set up, we could add an amendment to protect our cars, if we so desired. Also, we could repeal the one protecting weapons. My issue is on WHY have we choesen to protect guns and not cars? Also, although there is no specific reference to automobiles in the constitution, the American people do have a common law right to travel. You only have to contemplate the outcome of putting a law banning travel bewtween states without signed government consent forms before the supreme court in order to see that we do, as Americans, have the right to travel inour country. You may say "We have the right travel, but not neccesarily the right to drive a car... it means on horseback or by foot, like when it was written". In the same fashion, I can say "we have the right to bear arms, but not semi automatic firearms... it means black powder rifles and swords, like when it was written". So, I'd like to leave out the constitutionality argument at this point, and focus on why we protect one type of personal property, but not another.
Also, note that I am neither making a point for gun registration, nor against automobile registration, but simply making an observance of something I noticed.
