Ban on high speed cars

J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
I wish one of the gun rights organizations would push a ban on sports cars. Throw in some pointless regulation on the number of gears or 'traction control selector switches.' No one NEEDS a $500,000 sports car, and there is no constitutional protection of their ownership. Thousands are killed each year by the irresponsible activities of SPORTS CAR owners. They cause extreme environmental damage. From a logical and fact based point of view the arguments for banning them is SO MUCH stronger than for firearms. Throw in some emotion by including the cars owned by dictators and things about them etc.

I honestly think this would be a very very good way to explain our position to many members of the public, and a bill would be a good way to get some attention. It obviously would not pass. Maybe it would just tick of car collectors, but I think they would get it.
 
Last edited:
I will put on my psychologist hat. I understand the argument based on differential risk. The car and alcohol are more dangerous than the gun, thus they should be banned.

Thus guns should not be banned. There are only about 20-30K gun deaths a year.

But, here's the different - people don't just decide things based on risk analysis. They also have an emotional component.

For example, from 1981-1998, there were about 32K of cocaine deaths a year. Thus, the same logic suggests legalizing cocaine. Not many buy that emotionally but it makes sense logically to avoid the drug wars / crime relationship we have now.

Also, the purpose of the instrument is important. The car (even the sports car) has a core purpose of transportation. The gun doesn't. It's core purpose is as an instrument of lethal force.

Now - wait - it's just a tool. :eek: That's just a gun mantra to try to avoid that guns are lethal. Most sporting usages are based on practice for lethal use against humans or critters. No one, except in the gun world, buys into the tool analogy. It's one of those - please don't take our guns away - they are sport - whines. It's never worked in other countries.

Thus, the emotional purpose of the gun easily overrides the risk argument in most people's mind. Cars are necessary for modern life and death by car is an unpleasant side effect of a necessary usage. Are guns necessary? Not to the banner. We argue that they are necessary for self-defense and protection from tyranny. That is the rational case.

So, it's a good idea that surfaces. People say - hey - doctors kill more. So fix cars and doctors - it doesn't transfer to : So don't ban, guns.

I've studied a great deal about gun attitudes and that's my take. The best argument is the basic right to defend oneself' and protect against tyranny.
 
I don't think this will win over any of the Brady bunch, but people who don't get semi-auto rifles or 10+ round magazines may see that disallowing them makes little more sense than banning a Pagani Zonda because a Ford Taurus can get you to work just as well. The problem with basic right to defend is that in most peoples views it can be accomplished quite well with a J-frame and a SXS shotgun. I am well beyond purchasing firearms for defense. I have C+R rifles I don't own ammunition for, just as some rich people have cars they never take out of the garage.

The it is just a tool argument, in my use, is more a response to people who would like to assign the blame to guns. That is nonsense. Cleaning accidents and NDs? I have about one client a year who accidentally hits the accelerator instead of the brake while parking and puts someone in the hospital. In one case the person died.

I see what you are saying, but I think anyone trying to outlaw supercars would tick off quite a few rich donors, Reps and Dems, so it won't happen. If we used the doctors argument some regulation might actually happen and we would tick off some people.
 
Last edited:
I have a God Given right to 500 cubic inches, with 550 HP and 650 Lb/Ft.
With that goes 0-60 mpg in 4.5 seconds.

That right shall not be infringed by either regulation of expensive gas.

AFS:eek:
 
If no one needs an AR-15 because a bolt action rifle will do then no one needs a corvette because a cobalt will do.

When you allow the government to determine what you need they often determine you need very little.
 
Freedom of cars

Everyone gets a Prius. Take away all muscle cars, offenders to serve light labor for life, to be spent polishing Priusses. (Prii? Priussessies? Help me out, here.)

Or, best compromise, Tesla Roadsters for everyone! (they're working on a sedan for you family types) 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, 135 mph, 245 miles per charge--it's electric! (boogie-woogie-woogie-woogie!)

Ban swimming pools and drain cleaner, too. Prescription drugs. The government will keep you safe.

Read "With Folded Hands," by Jack Williamson.

MauiwherecanIgetastablessknifeDoc
 
sports cars, not just super cars. The numbers for sports cars are pretty big. I will see if I can pull some current numbers.
 
Last edited:
Glenn and Double Naught make very good points for we gun-rights folk to understand.

Using faulty reasoning and hyperbole to advance the cause of gun rights is dumb and no better morally than the lies that the Brady's use against us.

We have sufficient reasoning already to make our case very strongly and don't need to make up stuff.

My personal pet peeve is when gun folk try to compare guns (lethal instruments designed to kill) to things like cars, swimming pools and toasters.

Sure, a gun is an inanimate object with no will or moral conscience but it is a weapon and it is designed to kill and they are dangerous. Using specious and spurious comparisons to kitchen utensils make us look dopey.

We have a God-given pre-constitutional right to self defense. Even Paul Helmke recognizes that (I have YouTube video to prove it :)) and a gun is an effective way to do that. That is a factual foundation to build a great case for gun ownership that the Brady's emotional crap can't refute.
 
Last edited:
I wish one of the gun rights organizations would push a ban on sports cars. Throw in some pointless regulation on the number of gears or 'traction control selector switches.' No one NEEDS a $500,000 sports car, and there is no constitutional protection of their ownership. Thousands are killed each year by the irresponsible activities of their owners. They cause extreme environmental damage. From a logical and fact based point of view the arguments for banning them is SO MUCH stronger than for firearms. Throw in some emotion by including the cars owned by dictators and things about them etc.

I honestly think this would be a very very good way to explain our position to many members of the public, and a bill would be a good way to get some attention. It obviously would not pass. Maybe it would just tick of car collectors, but I think they would get it.
Click to expand...


The right to do anything or own anything is protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

9A states that even though a right wasn't mentioned or protected prior in the Constitution that it does exist.

10A states that all rights and powers, except those given strictly to the Fed govt or to the states, is reserved by the states and the people.


Now, since such cars are federally protected, and said right is reserved to the states and the people, the states could regulated it out of existence. The only way the feds could is via the Commerce Clause.
 
As I said, the GOA and gun folks make the doctor argument quite a bit. It is a subtle distinction, I'm trying to make. Just because a member of the choir makes an argument, it doesn't mean the argument will fly to someone outside the in-group.
 
Wells lets just ban cars all together or make the legal driving age 35. People die. Thats just how it is. People are going to die today or tomorrow or at the end of there life. Accidents happen. Get religion and stop worrying about it.
 
well, I think Cracked missed the whole point, but I am still thinking about what the others have said. I still think there is a niche for this argument. I also think it is different from the doctor argument. One is a luxury(cars), the other is not(doctors).

Lets try this Higlights style:
Which one of these statements is different from the others?
A.Why does anyone need a dozen rifles?
B.Why does anyone need a Ferrari?
C.Why does anyone need medical attention?
 
I think there is a 9th Amendment Substanitive Due Process right to honkytonkin' fast cars with big engines, loud exhaust, etc...

Ben Franklin would have driven fast, loud cars, drunk, with a lady of questionable virtue in the passenger seat if he had half a chance to do so. No question about it.
 
Okay johnwilliams, here is the bottom line...

Having the NRA attack out facets of society because you deem them equally or more dangerous is just plain stupid. Say you have the NRA attack the sports/super/whatever automotive industry. Then what will you do when the automotive industry attacks back?

What good does it serve to attack other aspects of society when it really won't promote gun ownership but will promote other aspects of society that formerly had not been enemies to become enemies?

What are you going to do, call for a boycott of gun owners to not buy automobiles? That will work out really well? You will be attacking the industry and not just a line of vehicles just like the attack on high capacity guns or "assault rifles" isn't just an attack against a lines of firearms.

Maybe you go against the tobacco industry. Are you going to make all the smoking shooters healthy by calling for a ban against the tobacco industry.

Come on. Think this through. The logic is poor and the results likely won't be beneficial. All that you will be helping is your ego, initially, and then that will get flattened when the whole thing goes down the toilet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top