Since people seem incapable of letting this go, I'll respond:
Cars are not regulated when they're on private property or when they're being towed. Why should guns be regulated when they're owned or carried?
Talk about your bad analogies. First off, cars are regulated when on private property, at least in my state, and I'm willing to bet a handful of others. You can't park your car on your lawn, nor have an unregistered vehicle in your driveway, and a host of other regulations. If however, there are places that have no restrictions on cars on blocks on the front lawn, then I certainly don't want to live there. Secondly, and more importantly, a car being towed is obviously an inoperable vehicle. A gun being carried can be assumed to be an operable firearm, unless the person carrying it is a moron, or the gun happens to be a Hi-Point. Be definition of the "operating" a motor vehicle, one must be driving it, in which case one must adhere to traffic laws, insurance regulations, registration rules, etc. However, carrying a firearm for defensive purposes, while it is not "operating" the gun per se, still assumes that one must be in control of the operation if the gun is ever meant to be used. If one has no plans on ever using the firearm in the case of defense, then one needn't have any regulations put on it -- one could just as easily carry an unloaded, read, inoperable firearm. It's quite obvious that carrying a loaded firearm suggests intent to use it, albeit conditional intent at that.
Slavery is the perennial straw rabbit that's pulled out of the hat whenever someone wants to prove that the founders weren't serious about liberty -- and therefore that we shouldn't care about freedom either
Yeah, but it's a pretty good rabbit, for argumentative purposes, don't you think? I could have brought up laws regarding female voting, too, and made my point. However, to say "therefore we shouldn't care about freedom either" is a logical fallacy. One does not follow the other. I was merely pointing out that 18th Century philosophy is a poor indicator of present day law.
restrictions are legally wrong. They presuppose guilt, requiring a person to prove that they are not a criminal. That is a violation of due process; a right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment
Restrictions do not presuppose anything. They set limits on what a person in society can and cannot do. I cannot run around naked in the streets because that violates my social contract. I cannot eat my dog. I cannot drive 150 miles an hour on Interstate 95. The laws are not there to suppress freedom, but instead to protect society. Licensing has the same effect, and does not, according to the Supreme Court, violate due process.
I was going to post some court decisions, but I was afraid Tamara might mock me again for being educated
In thinking about the car / gun analogy, one can look at it this way: A person can own as many cars as they want. If they want to take this car onto the open road amongst the other citizens, however, we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that the driver has some idea of the rules regarding traffic protocol, signage, safety procedures, and general operation of a motor vehicle. If a person cannot prove that he is a safe responsible and insured driver, then he can still keep his car, and wax it everyday in his driveway, but not take it out into the general populace.
For those lovers of the Constitution, you'll notice that it guarentees individual rights, but at the same time protects those of society. Of course you can't legislate against stupidity or criminal behavior, as the posters of the ham-handed situational examples have pointed out. A criminal will still be a criminal, no matter what. Unfettered freedoms, however, may ust go a long way towards making it easier for criminals to operate. Can you imagine if there were a licensing requirement that stated that no immigrants may take flying lessons? In this day and age, we need a harder lockdown to protect American freedom.
Dorothy Thompson, a prominent civil rights activist said, "Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare."
And if you don't like her, try John Adams: "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." I think it's pretty clear where he stands.
