There are a lot of people ignorantly re-posting a meme about licensing guns like cars. In some ways, many of us in the know would say, "Hey, that's a great idea!"
After all you can:
-Drive a car in public by yourself at 16
-Buy any car you can afford at 18
-Drive anything you want, as fast as you want on your own property with or without a license or training
-No federal license required
-You don't have to register a vehicle that stays on your own property
-You don't need a background check to buy a car
-You can buy a car in another state
-Car Mufflers are mandatory in public
-Car dealers don't have to get both a federal car dealers license AND a state/local business license
-Every state must recognize the license of any state, or even international licenses
-You only lose your license to drive based upon driving offenses, not random lists of other actions, misdemeanors, and long-ago mis-judgements. Even felons who used a get-away car aren't banned from driving for LIFE.
-If you lose your driver's license, you can still drive a farm vehicle on private property.
-There are hardship exemptions for people who need vehicles in remote areas that allow for underage or otherwise ineligible people to drive
But, they'll say: "You have to get trained to be in public, and pass a test. You have to carry insurance. There are rules of the road to adhere to."
Well, yes. Particularly if you're going to drive/shoot professionally for pay, I would agree to mandatory minimum proficiency standards. And when it comes to the "rules of the road" for guns, I submit that the pro-gun crowd is far more qualified to comment than the anti-gun crowd.
And mandatory insurance has its pitfalls when trying to actually make an equitable system rather than simply implementing a barrier. Besides, in most states, you can carry a bond rather than insurance. But what we're really talking about there is a barrier, not a remedy for negative externality, because the externality is really being imposed by criminals, not by the law-abiding, so mandatory insurance would not solve anything.
After all you can:
-Drive a car in public by yourself at 16
-Buy any car you can afford at 18
-Drive anything you want, as fast as you want on your own property with or without a license or training
-No federal license required
-You don't have to register a vehicle that stays on your own property
-You don't need a background check to buy a car
-You can buy a car in another state
-Car Mufflers are mandatory in public
-Car dealers don't have to get both a federal car dealers license AND a state/local business license
-Every state must recognize the license of any state, or even international licenses
-You only lose your license to drive based upon driving offenses, not random lists of other actions, misdemeanors, and long-ago mis-judgements. Even felons who used a get-away car aren't banned from driving for LIFE.
-If you lose your driver's license, you can still drive a farm vehicle on private property.
-There are hardship exemptions for people who need vehicles in remote areas that allow for underage or otherwise ineligible people to drive
But, they'll say: "You have to get trained to be in public, and pass a test. You have to carry insurance. There are rules of the road to adhere to."
Well, yes. Particularly if you're going to drive/shoot professionally for pay, I would agree to mandatory minimum proficiency standards. And when it comes to the "rules of the road" for guns, I submit that the pro-gun crowd is far more qualified to comment than the anti-gun crowd.
And mandatory insurance has its pitfalls when trying to actually make an equitable system rather than simply implementing a barrier. Besides, in most states, you can carry a bond rather than insurance. But what we're really talking about there is a barrier, not a remedy for negative externality, because the externality is really being imposed by criminals, not by the law-abiding, so mandatory insurance would not solve anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment