Skip to main content

View Diary: What If There Was A Constitutional "Right to Drive" for Motor Vehicles? (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  regulation. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, winsock

    cars typically don't need to be insured or registered unless they're going on public roads.

    kids can drive on public roads, etc.

    •  s/b "kids can drive on private roads" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, RudiB
    •  Typically is the wrong word for you here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      cars typically don't need to be insured or registered unless they're going on public roads.
      There are many, many jurisdictions in this country where you can't even have a car sitting in your driveway without being legally tagged and insured.

      Silly, silly argument against the common-sense logic of regulating who, how, and when a person can purchase "certain types of weapons" as we regulate the use of an automobile.

      It is time to #Occupy Media.

      by lunachickie on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:06:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  let's check. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        what state are you thinking of?

        •  For kicks, I picked three states at random: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          IN, MT, and CT.

          Under Indiana 9-18-2, registration is required for cars subject to the excise tax.  Under the excise tax statute at 6-6-5, cars that will be driven on public roads are subject to excise tax.  IOW, if you're on private property no registration is required.

          Under MT law @ 61-3-303, it's the same thing: registration required for use on public roads.

          Under CT law, same thing.  @ 14-12(a).

          If you think you know of any states w/ different rules, let's check it out.  I'm always happy to learn new things, even if - especially if! - it means I'm wrong.

          •  It's true in WA (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster

            I don't know about any of those other states, but my wife's parents used to have a cabin on a private island.  

            They were not required to register the car that they used on the island, because the roads were not public.  

            She drove the island car around the island beginning at 14 or so.


            by otto on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:12:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But I would ask this (0+ / 0-)

            Is a car that is driven on private lands subject to emissions testing?  

            Emissions are necessarily something that doesn't stay on your land, so I would argue that they should be subject to emissions, because that's the whole point of pollution control.  


            by otto on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:15:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  If everyone is willing to keep their guns on their (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      own property, more power to them.  They should still have to have insurance in case of accidental shootings, licensing, registration, demonstration of competence, etc.  etc.  if there are two gun owners in the same area we can't have any fingerpointing.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:21:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok, but the comparison to autos (0+ / 0-)

        simply isn't instructive.

        •  It seems to be to RKBA, they use it often enough. (0+ / 0-)

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:38:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  All metaphors (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          break down at some point.  This doesn't invalidate all comparison, but can certainly diminish the force of using the metaphor as an argument.  I think we can all agree that firearms and automobiles are different things.  How are they similar?  How are they different?  And how might our approach to automobiles inform our approach to firearms?

          In many ways, the comparison is a false equivalency.  For example, one could as well argue as follows: The number of firearms (270? million) and the number of registered passenger vehicles (254 million) are close -- overall, there are probably more guns than cars in the US.  However, the number of vehicle deaths is greater than the number of firearm deaths -- despite the fact that guns are designed for killing.  So what do we conclude?  Greater regulation results in more deaths?

          Obviously, I'm not arguing this.  But it does illustrate the dangers of drawing false equivalencies.

          Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

          by winsock on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:59:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? Each can be life-threatening if used (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          incorrectly. Each contributes to thousands of deaths each year.

          My point is simple. Because their use is highly regulated, cars do not kill the high number of people they have the potential to kill. Yet owners can use them and do use them, despite the high level of regulation involved.

          The same can be true of guns. Sensible gun regulation will not prohibit people from using guns. It will help--nothing will totally prevent--people from using guns to kill other people.

          Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

          by Sirenus on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:53:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site