Skip to main content

I wonder what life would be like if the Constitution had a Bill of Rights which said among other things "A well-regulated transportation system being necessary to a free state, the people's right to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed." Nobody would have a problem, would they? It would be very obvious that the intention of the framers was that individuals could own cars and trucks, but it would also be obvious that regulation by the government would be necessary and proper. We would not want to live in a place where anyone no matter what their mental state could drive an SUV anywhere, anytime, in any direction, as fast as they wanted and run into anything they chose.

Our problem is not gun ownership any more than the problem is with car ownership. The problem is we have all these guns running around with no regulation, erratic regulation, and lax enforcement of the regulations we do have. Firearms should be regulated at least as carefully and uniformly as automobiles are.

In no state can you drive on public streets without a license. In no state should you be able to take a firearm anywhere off your property without a license. Every firearm taken off the owner's property should be licensed, and every "operator" of a firearm should have an operator's license, which he or she obtained after passing a rigid course covering safety, rules and regulations, and appropriate use. It's in the public interest to require these things.

Different firearms would have different licensing qualifications, the same way commercial and passenger vehicles have different licensing requirements. Licenses would have to be renewed periodically. No one should be able to purchase or possess a firearm outside the home without having obtained the proper license. Penalties for unlicensed possession should be great enough to serve as a deterrent. Fees for licensing should be modest. Training courses should be free or at minimal cost to the applicant. Providing them would also give organizations like the NRA something profitable to do besides sending their spokesmen out to rant and rave in public.

Hunters and sportsmen would have no problem complying with such regulations. In general, they comply with the law now. For most, it would be a couple of hours of their time to help bring about a greater sense of law and order for everyone. They might even pick up a bit of useful knowledge about responding to threatening situations.

Congress should direct minimal requirements which states have to comply with, just as all states have similar traffic regulations. (Many of us remember when right turn on red was legal or illegal depending on where you were.)

You shouldn't be allowed to possess assault weapons, just as you are not allowed to possess nukes or anti-aircraft artillery. There is no justification for anything beyond handguns, rifles, or shotguns in private hands.

For those who contend that such weaponry is to guard against an oppressive government, please remember that we already have a government that can lay a drone on you anytime you become too disagreeable. You're hopelessly outgunned, and your "oppressive" might be other citizens' "just peachy". Our democracy is either advanced enough for you to accept it or your cause is lost anyway. Grow up.

We wouldn't want to live in a place where cars could go down the wrong lane of a superhighway at 120 mph because some people are paranoid about government regulation. If you did that and didn't kill someone or yourself, the government would be entirely justified in taking your car away.

People understand the need for automobile regulation even if the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is not their favorite place to spend forty-five minutes. They could handle a similar procedure for guns.

Firearms should be regulated much the way automobiles are regulated.

Originally posted to ebrann on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:36 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  that's not dissimilar from current law, is it? (4+ / 0-)

    in most places, except maybe Vermont, you need a license to carry in public, just like with a car.

    re hunters and sportsmen: they're often on private property, so they wouldn't need to be registered.  if they're hunting on public land, though, don't they need something like a fishing license currently?

  •  Something else--liability insurance (23+ / 0-)

    If you have to buy insurance for a car, why shouldn't you be required to buy insurance for a gun?

    It would almost certainly cut down on straw purchases, and also eliminate what little excuse gun owners have for not knowing where their guns are kept.

    Romney-Ryan: America's Rollback Team

    by Christian Dem in NC on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:09 PM PST

    •  Your suggestion is actually an excellent one (11+ / 0-)

      In fact, I think it can form almost the entire basis of a regulatory scheme. How to implement it and why is the subject of a diary I JUST published.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  you don't have to buy insurance unless (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Joy of Fishes, ban nock

      you're going on public roads.

      •  Actually if you're going to get a loan on a car (11+ / 0-)

        most lenders require insurance to protect their collateral, regardless of whether it is driven on public roads or not. Also the insurance is to protect YOU, not the roads. Even on a private estate, liability insurance is important if you hit someone.

        Its only required by law if you drive on public roads.

        •  actually, that's not what I said. (5+ / 0-)

          the author wants gun laws mirror cars? fine. no federal registration, and no state regulation or registration at all unless its brought on public property.

          •  No, but we do have a system for insurance (6+ / 0-)

            that works pretty well for most cars.

            Honestly, if a gun lives in a private safe and never comes onto public land, is it really a problem?

            I actually think that a variant of what the author is proposing could work.

            •  I don't think a car needs to be insured and a (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny wurster, gerrilea

              person doesn't need to be licensed to carry it on public roads. I see them all the time.

              There are just about now laws or requirements at all for carrying a car on public roads. As long as it's attached to whatever you are carrying it with and you are carrying it with a trailer of suitable capacity, you're good.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:15:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, lets add this into the mix: Homeowner's ins. (7+ / 0-)

                IF you have a mortgage, you MUST have insurance. Why? To protect the holder of the paper if the home is lost to accident.

                That's a material thing that isn't used to harm another (you don't take a house to a gun fight).

                Yet in the case of weapons, they not only STEAL MONEY from someone when they are killed (their life's net worth, particularly in the case of a bread winner), they steal the life itself.

                It seems to me if we are going to force insurance for inanimate things not used to harm, we should insure for things MADE to harm.

                202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                by cany on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:53:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bad example (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Remembering Jello

                  Whether I need title insurance or not is at the discretion of the mortgage giver, a private decision, not a matter of law.

                  We can have change for the better.

                  by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:34:23 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not title insurance, homeowners' insurance (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ebrann, radical simplicity

                    Title insurance is only to make sure the house is really mine and the bank's, in the event I go to sell it (title insurance is a must with all the foreclosures these days - my HOA foreclosed on a home 3 years ago and the idiots at the bank keep trying to serve the non-existent homeowner, because somebody STILL hasn't updated the title work - stupid because in public records it clearly shows the HOA is the owner).  

                    I'm required to carry liability, property and windstorm by my mortgage company - it protects me if somebody is injured on my property and protects the asset that I own with the bank in the event of fire or hurricane, so we can rebuild it and they get to keep collecting their mortgage payments.  

                    My mother has no mortgage, but I keep liability, property and sinkhole insurance on her house.  My insurance is $3,000 / year, her's is $800 / year (windstorm is the difference).  

                    If somebody trips and falls while working in / on my house or her house (or some crazy golfer beans one of guests in the backyard and knocks them out), our liability coverage takes care of any potential claim (and in Florida, one of the "sue me" states, you better believe a suit would be filed, even by the best of friends).

                    My dad owned two .38s and a shotgun (I have them now).  He had a CC permit, I do not.  I keep the .38s in a locked box, hidden in a "safe pocket" in my house (that's not locked but it requires moving a large item and taking out a hidden door to get to it).  I don't need to get to them quickly and I don't want anybody else to get to them easily.  My liability insurance is a little bit higher than it was before I brought them home and registered them in my name after he passed away.  My mom's GL went down a little bit after I cancelled his CC permit and removed them from her house.  The difference is less than $50 for each of us.  

                    My brother in law (an Iraq vet) used to work at a gun shop, before he got on with the Fire Department.  He told me I should trade in the .38s for a Lady Glock.  I do not feel the need.  I don't foresee ever using them - probably should just sell them, but since I can't guarantee that the registration would be updated, I don't want one of them being used in a robbery and coming back to me.  So I just keep them locked away where they can't be used against me physically or theoretically via paperwork / lawsuit.  

                    "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

                    by Ricochet67 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:54:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Errr... the mortgage holder has the right to (0+ / 0-)

                  ensure that if the property they are still owed money for is destroyed, they can collect the money owed...

                  I really don't see the parallel with gun ownership here, unless someone has to take out a mortgage on a gun...

          •  So.... (4+ / 0-)

            You buy your gun at a store...then it goes on public property to get to your bunker..Therefore the gun was on public property ...register and insure...

            Do something...marinedefenders.com

            by profewalt on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:33:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh good grief. This is silly. (7+ / 0-)

            Guns aren't cars.

            Sometimes this acts to the bennifit of gun owners.

            For example, just like some miniscule number of car owners might benifit from never driving their cars on public roads, so too gun owners would benifit by being not being required to have their guns equipped with seat belts and air bags.

            Talking about regulating guns like other consumer products such as cars doesn't have to mean engaging in silliness.

            It just means that we recognize that guns are dangerous consumer products.

          •  How about this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DefendOurConstitution

            guns don't need insurance unless their range is such that the bullet can reach public areas.

            If you use them in the middle of a huge ranch ... no insurance.

            If you can shoot them up in the air and the bullet can land in a public place possibly injuring someone then liability insurance is necessary.

            Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

            by Da Rock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:53:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  and no licenses to own (0+ / 0-)

            My mom inherited my dad's car, and learned how to drive at a later date.

            We can have change for the better.

            by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:33:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You're talking about a tiny fraction of the use (6+ / 0-)

        of vehicles.  Sure there may be farm vehicles but they're far and away the minority of cars being used.  I'd guess 99% of vehicles travel on public roads at some point, and that would include harvesters, road graders, and other machinery that primarily doesn't work on roads.

      •  In OK (7+ / 0-)

        You do have to have "off road" or "black tag" insurance on any autos that aren't driven on the roads. Even if it's in pieces, and undrivable, you still need to tag it, pay taxes on it, and maintain insurance on it.

        I just renewed the black tag (for a 1940 something jeep that's being restored, and is currently in pieces scattered between 4 households) and paid up a year's worth of insurance on it (combined, it was about $100).

        It may be different in other states.

        All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

        by Noddy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:01:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No need for any sort of tag here (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, VClib, happymisanthropy

          put it on a trailer and move it wherever you want. Legal carry.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:18:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  TX requires tags for cars (3+ / 0-)

          and to get tags you must prove insurance coverage (by VIN).

          However, if the car does not get driven on a public road or street with an invalid registration (including down to buy the new tags -- and yes, this can be a huge pain in rural places) you are not subject to a fine or payment for registrations in the year(s) that the car is not used on the highway. Have to get the insurance coverage before you get the tags.

          Similar arrangements with firearms might be workable, but I'm not anything like engineer enough to figure out how they'd be written so as not to infringe the 2nd amendment (affordability, among other considerations; and if you're a keeper of antiques or a collector, that affordability factor hops up by an order of magnitude, now, for cars; if you did the same thing for firearms, what would be the result?).

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:21:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Car Insurance / Gun Insurance (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, caul

            Not many uninsured drivers in British Columbia (left coast of Canada).

            The liability insurance company is a quasi-governmental agency. The only way to get the annual license tab is to buy insurance.

            In the states, an automobile can't be conceal carry, and you can't hide it in a desk drawer. So enforcing an insurance requirement would be quite a task.

          •  if you're going on public roads, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, VClib, happymisanthropy

            sure, you need tags and insurance.

            •  I have to prove my car insurance covers any (2+ / 0-)

              trailer I pull too in order to get tags for my trailer, which sits most of the time. I have a little popup camper (currently needing repair) and a 6x12 utility hauler that helps move the kids to/from new jobs, etc. Those trailers sit a lot.

              But the tags are cheaper for them than the fine for getting caught without....and I can renew tags in about 20 minutes' time, usually, so it's not that big a hassle.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:10:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  no you don't, noddy. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          you're paying a reduced fee so that you don't have to pay a higher fee if you deregister and then reregister.

          you do not have to register, though.  tell me your state and I'll show you exactly what the law says.

          •  here's the insurance section (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            A. Every owner of a motor vehicle which is not used upon the public highways or public streets shall be exempt from the provisions of the Compulsory Insurance Law if the owner of the vehicle has filed an affidavit with the appropriate motor license agent which states that the vehicle shall not be driven upon the public highways or public streets during the uninsured period.

            motor vehicles law 7-607

            •  So, an affidavit has to be filed (0+ / 0-)

              And it probably has details about the vehicle (year, make, model, VIN).  

              So why not have gun owners, file an affidavit stating that they do not need insurance because their gun(s), listed by make, model, serial number, are kept in a secure, private location and are not taken on to public lands?  

              They would need to report any stolen guns, to protect themselves because they had no insurance on it and if it's used in a crime, it will come back to them unless they report it.  

              "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

              by Ricochet67 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:00:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ricochet - gun registration isn't going to pass (0+ / 0-)

                in the 113th Congress, that's a line in the sand for gun advocates. We may see an assault weapons and large magazine ban (only on new sales), some improvement on the private sale exemption from background checks (often mistakenly termed "the gun show loophole"), and a better background check system. If we got all of that past the House, and signed into law, it would be a huge win for gun control. However, I am not sure we can pass all of that.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:04:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gotta start somewhere (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ebrann, a2nite, radical simplicity

                  Let's get legislation passed first that everybody seems to be in favor of (no new assault weapons and large magazines - something like 74% of gun owners are OK with that).  Background checks also seem to be heavily favored, including the gun show "loophole" closure, so go for that.  Extended waiting periods for a THOROUGH background check - up to 30 days even - a lot of people don't seem to mind that either.  It's the ones who can't pass an intensive background check that are against it - the very people that we need to use it for.  

                  As far as I'm concerned, those who doth protest too much, are probably the people mostly likely to be denied.  

                  If you're an honest person, with nothing to hide, there's no reason to not want a thorough check before you get your permit, as long as the same applies to all applicants.  It's the only fair way.  

                  At the same time, if we can get those 3 things, we really need to work on enforcing the laws already on the books against people who use guns in a crime or to terrorize others - get busted for domestic abuse and you have a gun in the house?  Too bad, it gets taken.  After you pass anger management, get a mental health assessment, etc. you can apply to get your gun back, as if it was a new gun and go through the process above.  

                  If you inherit guns from a relative (hunters and others), and the deceased had a permit or hunting licenses, even if their guns were not registered, the heir needs to go get their own permit or licenses and register them.  No free passing down of guns.  I did this with my dad's 3 guns - he had a permit and 2 of them were registered with the county.  I didn't get a permit, but I did register them (all 3) in my own name, so they know I have them in my house.  Registration is easy in Florida, getting a permit is also relatively easy, but I don't want one.  I don't intend to carry them around or have them in my car like dad did.  I might take them to a gun buy back (they're .38s, not Glocks or anything like that), but I'd want to be damn sure they were not re-sold with my name still linked to them.  

                  It will take time, but eventually we'd get a lot of guns off the street being held by the angry and unstable.  Start gun & high cap magazine buy backs - some people, no matter how pro-gun they are, are willing to do this - recent events that triggered some towns to do buy backs have had pretty positive results.

                  A small step is better than none at all.  Kind of like the ACA - can't get 100% public option, but what we have is a start and it's better than nothing.  As time passes, it will be tweaked until I think we will finally actually have Medicare for All.  Same thing with gun registration - start somewhere and eventually, it will cover everything.  

                  "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

                  by Ricochet67 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:29:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not ging to argue with you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            I live here, I know what I have to pay. I know what I get fined and ticketed for.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

            by Noddy on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:37:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I wish I had a dollar for every time (20+ / 0-)

      I had this interview with a local citizen:

      Me:  How are you doing today, Mr. Jones?  Tell me, how did you get to my office today?

      Mr. Jones: I drove.

      Me:  Do you have a current and valid drivers license, and may I please see it?

      Mr. Jones:  I ain't got one.

      Me: How long have you been driving without a license?

      Mr. Jones:  I don't rightly remember.  I think they took 'em about 1986.  It might have been 1987 or so, I don't rightly remember exactly when they took 'em.

      Me: What did they take your license for?

      Mr. Jones: I had a DUI and no insurance.

      Me: If you got all that straightened out, how much do you owe the county?

      Mr. Jones:  Probably about $20,000 or so, I don't know exactly.  

      Me:  How many DUIs have you gotten?

      Mr. Jones: I don't rightly recollect right now.  Quite a few.

      Me:  Have you been without insurance since 1986?

      Mr. Jones: I ain't never had no insurance.  (This is a man in his 60s).  

      Me:  Aren't you concerned about going to jail?

      Mr. Jones: They treat me all right down there.  I do my thirty days and they let me go.

      Good luck on making insurance mandatory.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:04:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh. (6+ / 0-)

        There are some states that would string you up form an overpass with a story like that.



        Denial is a drug.

        by Pluto on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:08:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some states maybe, (10+ / 0-)

          but this is typical of mostly rural states (and counties).  They literally do not have room at the jail for characters like this, and when overcrowding gets too bad, the judge fines them and lets them go on their own recognizance.  Then the fine never gets paid because the offender has no job and is on SSI or Social Security.

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:12:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds pretty sweet, to tell you the truth. (8+ / 0-)



            Denial is a drug.

            by Pluto on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:25:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I dunno about that, but a rec for making me grin. (7+ / 0-)

              I am probably going to go to hell for that.

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:34:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hope not. :) (7+ / 0-)

                WI had light penalties for unlicensed drivers up to very recently.  If memory serves, the law was changed following several instances of unlicensed drivers causing death and injury, and the change was supported by law enforcement.  Under the new law:  

                … a person convicted of OWL [operating without license] or OWS [operating while suspended] who, in the course of the violation, causes great bodily harm to another person: 1) must forfeit not less than $5,000 nor more than $7,500 if, at the time of the violation, the person did not know, respectively, that he or she did not possess a valid operator's license or that his or her operating privilege was suspended; or 2) is guilty of a Class I felony if the person knew.  A Class I felony is punishable by…  [continues with descriptions of fines and prison terms]
                https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/...  (bolding mine)
                A combination of stronger licensing laws & insurance requirements might not the whole solution for reducing gun violence, but I think they should be explored, along with the ideas that 43north and some others have put forward.

                I always prefer to believe the best of everybody, it saves so much trouble.

                by Joy of Fishes on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:36:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is actually very easy to get a substantial (7+ / 0-)

                  liability insurance policy for firearm accidents.  Join the NRA.  Annual dues are not that expensive.  However, there is no insurance for sale anywhere for any price that covers illegal acts.  

                  Passing a mandatory insurance law is a guaranteed way to swell the already large ranks of the NRA.  

                  The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                  by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:31:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not worried ... (5+ / 0-)

                    ... about the NRA right now.  Perhaps I would be if I knew more.  But at this point I am thinking that the NRA would be happy with having increased demand for membership and insurance because it brings in more money, making them part of the solution.  Change in mix of membership could shift their focus back to safety and education.  And they surely would not be the only player - other insurers will step in to meet demand.  

                    As for illegal acts, we have criminal laws & we can build on programs that already exist, such as crime victim compensation funds.    

                    I am sure there are dozens of reasons any particular idea might not be feasible.  But I think we can find a solution if we work together.

                    Take care, OS.  It's always good to see you in these threads.

                    I always prefer to believe the best of everybody, it saves so much trouble.

                    by Joy of Fishes on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:29:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  JoF, I was a life member until the crazies (6+ / 0-)

                      took over about thirty or so years ago. That was when I cancelled my membership. I can tell you that the main danger to the progressive cause will be the non-stop right wing propaganda mailings that go out to all members.  Some of it is very clever and appeals to people's deepest fears.  Those folks on the fence or who are naive will be sucked into the whirlpool of right wing nuttiness.  I am not in favor of anything that will push people to join the NRA.  There is far more risk of losing Dem votes than changing the organization.

                      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                      by Otteray Scribe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:43:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  There is an amusing German solution (4+ / 0-)

            They take the car as evidence, and hold it while your license is suspended.  After all, they need proof that you were driving the car.

            If it was the family car, and the teenager lost daddy's car, well, that is a purely family matter.

            We can have change for the better.

            by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:38:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Around here, you can get some rustbucket (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy, Pluto

              for anywhere from two to five hundred dollars.  If you go by the county impound yard, the place is full of them.  And people actually buy them at the Sheriff's annual auction.  Guess what happens to them then?

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:21:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  No way in California (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe, Joy of Fishes

        The fine's 5K for a DUI here with a year suspended license and three year's probation plus mandatory classes once per week for a year about alcohol safety.

        The limit's .08.

        By your second or third DUI, they often will sentence you for it.

        They are not forgiving here, not one bit.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:05:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am not (0+ / 0-)

      required to buy insurance for a car.

      I am only required to buy insurance for a car that I am going to drive on public roads or public ways, which in MA include many "private" roads, and which I have therefore licensed.  

      Also, to own a car and have all those papers so that the car may be driven on my street,

      I do not need a driver's license.

      I just can't be the one driving it.

      We can have change for the better.

      by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:31:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Framers forgot to mention cars (9+ / 0-)

    ...in the constitution.

    (Maybe that's a good thing....)



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:09:27 PM PST

  •  i hate selfish A hole drivers (6+ / 0-)

    They killed ~32,000 peeps last year
    up from from 36 in 1900
    We could very easily eliminate every single one of these senseless deaths by introducing draconian penalties
    & substantial jail time for minor infractions to major accidents ...
    Would someone juss think of the childrenz

    Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:41:44 PM PST

    •  Yeah so let's just end all regulation! (9+ / 0-)

      I mean, if the system isn't 100% effective, then fuck it, right?

      The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

      by Beelzebud on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:47:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Car deaths have dropped nearly 50% in last 40 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeff in nyc

      years (in spite of a huge increase on the number of drivers, cars, and passenger miles) because of the regulations.  OTOH, gun deaths are just about to catch up to car deaths, and gun deaths are steadily rising since 2000 (sure they dropped for a while in the 1990s, but since 2000 they are growing steadily).  Add to that the fact that vehicles benefit just about 100% of Americans (even the ones that don't drive still receive deliveries like mail at some point), and guns benefit about 1/3rd of the population (I presume all the owners feel it benefits them).  Guns are solely built to kill, which has very limited societal value.

      By your perfect logic, rape/incest/abuse/theft/and other crimes should also be allowed as well.  It sure sounds like your perfect havens would be Somalia or Yemen, easy to own a gun and virtually no restrictions on crime.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:57:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cars don't equal guns (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, hmi, Joy of Fishes, gerrilea

    In making public policy and laws, deeper reasoning is needed that the simple though of regulating cars and guns in similar ways.

    For example, if one is proposing that guns be registered, there needs to be a clear rational reasoning and data to should how this leads to significantly lower rates of homicide, suicide and other violence.  Saying cars are registered, so guns must be registered does not do so.  

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:55:07 PM PST

    •  It's easy to understand (4+ / 0-)

      Most of us fear sudden death or injury. If we didn't, we wouldn't need traffic laws. It's easy to see the need for regulation. Otherwise we would have many thousands more traffic deaths per year, unless everyone stayed home out of fear for their lives. We don't have to have to suspend laws while we gather more data to prove it.

      What we fear from firearms is that someone will use one to kill or injure innocent people. By allowing anyone to possess firearms we allow irresponsible persons to be greater threats than they are. Regulation can reduce the threat of random harm.

      The car analogy is psychological at least. A licensed owner with a registered firearm would have basic training in safety and responsible use. We would likely reduce harm as well as the threat of harm.

      •  I'd be happy with less drivers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:21:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Regulations come down to specifics (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, gerrilea

        Some regulations would work, others don't work and some may even be counter productive.

        Passing a safety test with both written and physical operation would be reasonable (unless made intentionally too difficult for ordinary people to pass) and would genarally be acceptable to gun owners.  Requiring all transfers and sales of guns and amunition to go through licensed gun dealers (as aldready done in California) is also reasonable and likely acceptable to gun owners.  

        Having a national registry of people with potentially dangerous mental illness would also help in preventing them from purchasing guns, autos and certain chemicals and from being employed in certain jobs (eg, food service, flying aircraft, operating certain equipment, handling dangerous chemicals, etc.)

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:44:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agree. We need to restore... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, DefendOurConstitution

      ... funding for this research & ensure that proposed actions are supported by data showing the benefits of the actions.  

      I always prefer to believe the best of everybody, it saves so much trouble.

      by Joy of Fishes on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:29:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, I'd love it if guns were regulated like (12+ / 0-)

    cars. Because then my license would be good in all 50 states + territories without question.

  •  Actually, my mother is 80-years-old (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, gerrilea

    deaf in one ear, blind in one eye and can barely see over the steering wheel. And she keeps dinging other cars. But they keep giving her a license to drive. They denied her a license a few years ago, but allowed for a note from her doctor to waive that restriction.

    It sort of seems to me that we do

    ...live in a place where anyone no matter what their mental state could drive an SUV anywhere, anytime, in any direction, as fast as they wanted and run into anything they chose.
    And you're allowed to keep driving - maybe not for awhile following whatever damage you do and considering how much you might have been drinking, but you still get to drive.

    The driving test that my kid took is way, way easier than what I had to get through to get a license. Way easier.

    So, not sure the analogy works here.

  •  When we start driving guns, shooting cars, and (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, 43north, VClib, PavePusher, gerrilea

    having a special place for doing so in the bill of rights this would all be worth discussing.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:32:58 PM PST

  •  Differences (8+ / 0-)

    Note some important features of the "car" model (which I mostly support and have proposed myself elsewhere on Kos):

    1) Your license is good everywhere, for any vehicle that license is valid for.

    2) Your liability insurance is based on the vehicle you own, your age, gender, location and other risk factors.

    3) Very few vehicular violations result in the confiscation of your car, and none result in you losing all your cars or the ability to buy a car. Inability to take it anywhere but your own property and cause you to have ruinous insurance rates, perhaps.

    4) Training is available for high school students as part of the curriculum in. I can't see this one getting implemented for guns, but just figured I'd toss it out there.

    I think the diarist needs to get off the "assault weapon" wagon until there is actually a definition of it that everyone agrees on. After all, we already have very restrictive licensing that allows for the civilian ownership of genuine military weapons. Like the heavy weapons you might have seen on Mythbusters, a lot of Hollywood weapons are the real thing, owned by collectors and rented out under very tight supervision.

    But otherwise, good diary.

  •  Odd note on anti-aircraft weapons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    NOT suggesting this for the US, but Switzerland at least used to allow honorably retired high-ranking officers to keep personal anti-aircraft artillery. (Source, John McPhee's book).

    Switzerland is one of those places you can't generalize from.

  •  Should Cars Go More Than 60 MPH? (3+ / 0-)

    Seriously, shouldn't cars like that be limited to the police?

    Having a faster car just invites lawlessness, the kind of lawlessness that kills thousands of people per year.

    Don't we all know people that own fast cars are just compensating for their sexual shortcomings?

    And aren't cars that look fast just an incentive for people illegally modify their cars to go faster?

    And couldn't we reduce fatalities even more if we made gasoline super super expensive?

    Then we could even require ID to buy gasoline, because owning too much gasoline could lead to car accidents.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:59:57 PM PST

    •  Some states have speed limits as high as 75 mph (3+ / 0-)

      and if you are on a long trip the difference is meaningful. I wish some well paved remote highways had no limits. Some did at one point before the 70s oil embargo. Many cars can safely travel at 100 mph and do so every day in Germany.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:28:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The technology for fast cars exists. (0+ / 0-)

      I forget the top speed. I'm thinking something around 600 miles per hour or something.

      Should such a car be manufactured as a consumer product, without a governor to limit the speed, would you be opposed to laws requiring a governor beyond how far somebody could press the accelerator with their foot?

      Should a semi-automatic weapon, designed and manufactured as a consumer product, have a governor to limit its rate of fire and how quickly magazines can be swapped, or should the only governor be the speed that an itchy trigger finger can manage?

      It seems to me that without properly functioning governors, some consumer products (such as very fast cars and guns) are simply defective in their design as consumer products.

  •  We wrote the same thing at Winning Words Project (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebrann, DefendOurConstitution

    Stop the party of Gut & Spend policies that gut our Earned Benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare and spends on tax breaks for the wealthy elite.

    by jillwklausen on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:09:25 PM PST

  •  The right to safe, legal 1st trimester abortion (6+ / 0-)
    "You're hopelessly out[matched in state legislatures], and your "oppressive" might be other citizens' "just peachy". Our democracy is either advanced enough for you to accept it or your cause is lost anyway. Grow up."

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:27:27 PM PST

  •  Another bit of fun (2+ / 0-)

    Imagine either:

    A) Having a time machine and going back to the pre Bill Of Rights drafting session with a Bushmaster and 200 round drum mag, and showing the authors just what their 2nd was going to end up letting the plebs play with.
    B) Instead bringing the drafting committee for a quick visit to the modern day USA and making them have a look round, pay a visit to any police evidence seized gun room,  and watch a few hours of news shows.

    Methinks that 2nd clause would have been worded a lot more carefully.

    •  The Founding Fathers (5+ / 0-)

      would have asked where they could buy some.

      Thomas Jefferson owned cannon.  When Washington in 1775-1776 started equipping his warships to harass British ships coming in to Boston, he bought them from private owners.

      One of the founding fathers might, however, have asked if your futuristic ultratech had solved the last problems in machinegun operation, as the period automatic fire weapons -- I believe the earliest patent is 1730 -- did not work as well as might have been hoped.

      And if they learned the issues the Second Amendment had entailed, they would have struck the dependent clause.

      We can have change for the better.

      by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:43:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Imagine showing them reddit or reality TV (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      I'm pretty sure they'd be horrified and would rethink the first amendment.

      I think guns should be at least as regulated as cars (and ammo should be heavily taxed and difficult to get), but the values and personal preferences of 18th century white male landowners isn't a very good argument in general.

      We're on the same side; I've just seen this argument torn apart.

    •  If they could see the present day (0+ / 0-)

      they would have prohibited standing armies, not bushmasters.

      In politics, there is the class war. Everything else is naming post offices.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:09:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, I have been saying this for a while... (4+ / 0-)

    When you buy a gun, it must be registered just like a car. You must be trained and pass a written and shooting test. Then make each person buy an insurance policy just like your car. If you sell the gun, or give it away, you must have a bill of sale, and the next owner will need to register it into their name, get the insurance.

    So what if it cost money, if you want to own 20 guns, then you must pay for the tax, just like a car tag, and some kind of liability insurance. This might discourage people from owning so many guns, or if they do, then the income generated will help the local, state, and feds raise funds. and keep up with all the weapons.

    Too bad if people think this is intrusive or a hassle, so is buying, owning, driving a car. Hell, if you went to buy a car from a dealership, it takes 2 hours to purchase because of all the paperwork involved,  even if you throw the cash down on the desk.

    Same thing if you own a house, property, a business. There are taxes and insurance and paperwork.  Every parcel of land has a tax id number, it is public record. Don't hear any complaints from the right on this subject.
    All should be done, a national registry for all guns, just like cars. That vin# on your car is unique and easily traced to one auto, this would be a great way to keep up with the guns, well this is my humble opinion.

    Not everyone owns a car, not everyone owns a gun......

  •  excellent post (0+ / 0-)

    more than excellent.
    i have proposed insurance as well, to entice the big players a monetary incentive for joining the fray.

    interestingly but implausible- i would love to see the ins lobby battle it out with the gun lobby.

    still and sadly, we are in a system that is money driven- and that would and is the prime motivator for change.

    “It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.” -Voltaire

    by downtownLALife on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:00:58 PM PST

  •  You don't possess an arm, you keep an arm. Keeping (0+ / 0-)

    arms should be enforced.

    It could be the same to acquire an arm as it is now.  But severing responsibility for that arm could be made very complicated and mandatory.

    If you lose it, or it gets stolen, no more 'silly me' defense.  Your responsibility cannot be severed by someone else, only you by the strictly regulated methods.

    Please sign my petition.  Enforce the KEEP in the 2nd amendment.

  •  ahh that pesky Constitution... N/T (0+ / 0-)
  •  car titles and registration (0+ / 0-)

    A number of comments refer to a lack of requirements for cars on private land. Not so. Currently titled vehicles, except in junkyards, are to be kept current relative to registration, even if they are just gathering dust in the backyard.
      In Colorado, all past due registrations and a penalty are required to be paid if one would, say, sell and transfer title.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site