US Politics October: This is how we roll in the Hussein Clown Posse

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics October: This is how we roll in the Hussein Clown Posse

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Amergin posted:

I think a lot of people conflate those who don't like drugs (in the sense of recreational use, including marijuana) and don't see the worth in recreational use of drugs, with the notion that those drugs should be illegal.

This probably happens, but I think it's actually a charitable interpretation. It's really loving stupid to post on the Internet about things you think are boring or just a waste of time, because no one cares that you don't like a particular activity. People might care that you think a particular activity is/should be illegal, so I think it's somewhat polite to assume the person talking about how marijuana is bad is talking about regulation, but it is possible they are being really stupid.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 16:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 14:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Triskelli posted:

I've always considered doing things like the driver's license would be the best bet, because it's easy to get people to agree that a gun is as deadly as a car. You'd need to have a license to own any firearm, to get a license you need to pass a test demonstrating gun safety and responsibility, and you'd need to renew that license every 3-5 years. If you don't have a license then authorities are allowed to confiscate your weapon until you recieve one. This would come with a ban on interpersonal sale of guns, so that for every shithead that says "criminals will still use guns" we can say "yes, but now when we get them off the streets they'll stay off the streets". Aside from that though all the bullshit about magazine restrictions, what types of guns you're allowed to have, the differences between a concealed and open carry license, those go out the window.

This is completely unlike driver's licenses though. You don't need a driver's license to own a car, just to operate one on government property. You do need to renew it in some states, but that's just clicking a button online, I'm not sure what the utility of that is other than collecting fees. The government will definitely not confiscate your car if your license expires or is suspended, and people can transfer cars however they want, formally or informally. Also you do need different sorts of licenses to operate different sorts of cars, so even removing restrictions on different sorts of guns is different.

Cars and guns are different things, and they should be regulated differently. Why are people so obsessed with this obviously stupid analogy?

# ¿ Nov 1, 2014 20:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ron Jeremy posted:

They definitely will if you're operating with a suspended license, and the registration and safety items are often a reason for police to initiate contact with poor people. Cops don't call them warrant wagons for nothing.

No, they will impound your car, but you can have it back. Regardless, even if you want to argue that impounding is similar enough to confiscation, the fact that the scheme he described isn't at all like driver's license still stands for the several other reasons.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 00:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nintendo Kid posted:

Yeah, you can have it back if you place it in your driveway and never let it move sure.

So I take it you'd be ok with guns having all parts necessary for firing removed then?

They don't disable your car, you just aren't allowed to operate it on government property. Also what I'm ok with and whether or not the driver license analogy works whatsoever are completely separate things. I've already directly stated we should regulate guns and cars differently. Seriously, why do you think the gun/car analogy is worth anything?

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 00:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nintendo Kid posted:

In other words you can't use it unless you are a massive landowner. For the vast majority of people in this nation this means the car is inoperable unless you really like going a few feet backwards and forwards in a garage/driveway.

This is not at all true, they can allow other people to use it or use it illegally (edit: this is what actually happens) or use it somewhere private if they can get someone to transport it there. This analogy is obviously terrible what value do you think it has? Even if it were correct (which it isn't), there's no reason to think that guns and cars should have similar regulations.

twodot fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 2, 2014

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 14:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nintendo Kid posted:

It is possible to have a car impounded though as punishment for repeated license violations though.

You're just re-making old arguments. A) Impound and confiscation are different things B) Even if we think they are similar there are a bunch of other differences so what

quote:

There are also insurance regulations that can mean someone cannot in fact lend out out their car as it won't be under legal insurance, and so on. There are many man y ways that repeat traffic offenders can have their car be unable to be legally used period.

It's not illegal (in the normal sense) to violate an insurance agreement, but even if we are using words that way, it still doesn't matter. Making it so that someone can't legally use a car is very different from physically disabling a gun. If you want this analogy to work, you need to make it so that person still has possession of a working gun, but can't legally use it (but can legally transfer, lend, et cetera). (And even if the analogy worked, it would still be stupid)

Seriously, directly answer why you think this analogy is good. (edit: To be clear, acknowledging that we should regulate guns differently from cars means we have the option of regulating guns more strictly than cars. Thinking we should treat guns and cars the same leads to madness)

twodot fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 2, 2014

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 02:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics October: This is how we roll in the Hussein Clown Posse