One of the biggest lies the gun control crowd ever told was to proffer the meme that guns were less regulated than teddy bears. Lately they prefer the comparison of guns to cars, which doesn’t strain credulity as much, but they gloss over the fact that you can buy a car without a background check, license, or training, and haul it off to keep or drive on private property. Charles W. Cooke takes a look at these claims.
6 thoughts on “Gun Ownership Actually Regulated”
Comments are closed.
… And you don’t even need to be legally able to drive the car to buy it. The only use in that case would be on private property. Do they really think that’s how gun ownership works? If so, they are even more clueless than I imagined.
Do they also think that’s how car ownership works?
Don’t underestimate their ignorance. Many people don’t know that you don’t need a license to drive on private property.
It’s not like the State encourages the spread of that information.
That said, I remember an FB argument with an anti screeching about “Regulate guns as Cars”, who was agahst at ideas like national reciprocity or permitless private usage or that you can transport a car on public roads via trailer.
He made the argument that the only “private” use of guns was inert replicas. Because any discharge of any firearm was inherently public.
Also if the vehicle is used on a farm or private property it doesn’t even have to be road legal, no registration, plates, insurance, or inspection required, not to mention the no drivers license to run it part……
I pointed out those exact things about the gun / car anology to an anti on twitter. They refused to believe me and once I proved it to them, they then fell back on the “it doesn’t matter anyways, guns should be regulated far more than cars” arguement.
I did an analysis and proposal based on this some months ago.
I did the turn it around. What happens if we treat cars like guns?
Thoughts on the gun debate part seven: Treat guns like cars.