Is this a bad argument, Sup Forums?

Is this a bad argument, Sup Forums?

>captcha: 2016

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

this is a great argument for deregulating cars.

Cars kill a lot more people than guns do, though.

Guns are more important than cars.

Why did they make two separate columns the that say the exact same thing?

Too bad driving isn't a right guaranteed in the constitution.

Remember horse and sword control back in the 1200's?

Neither do I.

I love the part of the 2nd ammendment where they talk about cars

It's all clear now...
We need to ban cars too!

>Not posting the number of deaths compared to guns.
The only thing this proves is that if guns were as regulated as cars then more people would die based on its own stupid logic.

Why are constitutionalists so impossible to talk to? You're like militant religious zealots. No matter what happens or what anyone says, you can only counter with "muh constitution" or "muh amendments".
And before you attack me, know that I'm not taking a stance that agrees or disagrees with either you or the op, I'm just wondering why you can't reasonably defend your view point without pointing at your holy text.

Been waiting to post this.

That goes both ways.

Actually, right to travel is guaranteed. "Gun's" aren't specifically permitted in the constitution, it's "right to bear arms".

I think we are too restrictive on vehicles though. It's fucking bullshit.

Because that paper is the rules that our government must follow if you don't like it get your senator to try and ratified but good luck

It's only bad argument because I bet if cars were around in the 1780s and they were important to everyday life as they are now the guys who wrote the constitution probably would have made them a protected right.

So do I.

Because any leader who wants to violate a countries constitution should be sentenced to death for treason.
If you want to have those laws go somewhere else that doesn't have the right to bear arms. Like Canada.

Because it's the only thing that protects us from faggots like you that want to take away our freedoms. I have the right to bear arms. Use them arms to protect myself from all enemies foreign and domestic.

If you don't want the protection of the Constitution, get out.

It's a good thing that heavily regulated car ownership has actually removed the threat of assault car incidents.

Wait, shit, more people are dying in car accidents than guns every year. When are we going to start banning cars?

Those are only the restrictions for driving in public. In many states you need those same restrictions to carry a gun in public.

> IF CARS WERE REGULATED LIKE GUNS

"Long distance commutes being necessary for the modern economy, the right of the people to keep and operate cars shall not be infringed"

Travel doesn't require cars.

arms
noun
weapons; armaments.

Arms is a broader term, you have the right to guns, to cannons, to swords.

Nobody prevents me from buying a Ferrari or other fast car, why can't I buy a machine gun?

Nigga, that is soverein citizen talk. I am not even american and know that the "right to travel" means you arent supposed to be bound to some place, like forced by someone (that is not the government, they can arrest you) to stay by force.

If you are traveling on car or by foot, that is totally up for the actual laws

>Is this a bad argument, Sup Forums?

If those were the only regulations then I'd be able to acquire and possess my guns without a license as long as I only used them on private property.

You don't need a license to own a car. You need a license to drive on public roads.

Wouldn't it be vehicles instead of cars?

...

underrated, checked, and saved.

Nice.

Coming as someone who also think constitutionalists are faggots, I really do think it's necessary to keep the population armed. The threat of tyranny is still very real, and seeing the shit that passes over in Europe is hilarious. You can guarantee no one's going to go to jail just for sharing extreme opinions with the threat of armed retaliation from the same people that regurgitate that old mantra "muh constitutional rights" with that beautiful guaranteed American brand free speech.

"A well regulated NASCAR, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Cars, shall not be infringed."

That's my point, it's a broad term.
I can arm myself with a sword instead of a gun.
I can travel on a bicycle instead of a car.

We would be pissed if they banned the use of cars.

I wish bicycles where as regulated as cars. Can we start pushing that instead?

Will you pay the premium in taxes to place an armed police officer outside of my wharehouse???

I have a truck yard in Atlanta GA... I can't go home at night without unhooking the batteries from all 5 of my rigs... I was threatened twice by fuckin niggers at knife-point closing and leaving.

The police can't be here every night to escort me home.

That's why I pack... And I have brandished my weapon to keep these animals away.

Will you and every American pay the premium to put armed professional/government controlled security outside of my wharehouse every night?

And if you are willing, will you bitch every time that security official shoots a nigger?

Fuck off!

to correct myself the constitution on travel if written like the 2nd amendment would probably say "right to pilot vehicles" or something like that

Cars are more dangerous that guns though

Furthermore... Would you like to live in a world where there is an armed security officer on every street corner??

Underrated. Nice trips. Gun grabbers BTFO.

Driving is not a right.
Baring arms is.

You anti car people always post this shit. We don't need to ban all cars just automatic cars.

Inalienable rights are to modern jurisprudence as muskets are to nuclear weapons. It's a fucking joke that we're adhering to such an out of date document while on the cusp of a technological singularity. It's like reading the Bible as literal truth off of a smartphone.

Soros feels weak, it's the only explanation for this spilling of spaghetti right now, time to shut down the congress, write letters, make calls, especially to these democrats who want a holocaust here in America,

these assholes need to go

they're filibustering now,

>guns kill people

>You're like militant religious zealots.
>holy text
you would only think that if you'd never read the federalist papers, and had no idea why the COTUS is so flawless. you're literally just saying, "i cannot discern between the two... and that is your fault."

you sit there totally fucking clueless, asking us to reiterate why 1+1=2, and then wonder why you get a curt answer.

you have no excuse. shit's all online. read constitution.org before posting in another such thread.

all of it.

Following your logic then yes that is a bad argument. Cars are well regulated but 50 thousand people a year die here in the USA. Way more than the number killed by guns

>need
kys

If Immigrants from places hostile to the US were as regulated as cars

There's no "right to drive" you faggot.

I am a constitutional scholar. The founders were impying that Cars are only for commutes not private citizens!
Well regulated bus drivers can drive cars you dont have a RIGHT to own one

>Sell guns like cars.

I'm pretty OK with that OP.

This. You don't need anything more than a manual.

Suck a niggers dick you faggot. Go move to some shithole in Africa and tell me how progressive and awesome it is since we live in such an enlightened age. Oh, no guns btw im sure you'll be alrite mate.

Constitution is not meant to bend cunt.

>living document
>out of date

How about trying to update it?

Oh, wait, that's because most people still feel the Second Amendment is relevant. Huh.

well is there a right to 30-round detachable magazines? or do i have to painstakingly load one round at a time into a tube, flipping a lever each time, so that the people around me are safe?

>can't think of anything else to back up their opinions
>continues to resort to "cuz the constitution"
Way to prove my point.

You can't buy a car and move it to private property without a license. At best you're disingenuous, at worst you're retarded.

>the cusp of a technological singularity.

Underrated post

No because not all of this is required at the same level or at aall across the nation as a whole. Really its only an argument for state's rights

It's not a bad idea to seek out some kind of liability insurance regarding the possibility of self defense. There are some insane stories of innocent homeowners being sued by an intruder or family of an intruder who was wounded or killed during a home invasion. I'm not sure if liability insurance exists for such a scenario but there are defense lawyers who deal in cases of justifiable use of deadly force.

>Way to prove my point.
It's a living document. It can be changed any time. If you can't change it then it means that the majority disagrees with you.

it's not an opinion. there will not be any new gun ban or restriction, period. this is the rest of your life, unless you leave the country.

>What is towing, for $200, Alex?

>what is a weekend VTR for $500, alex?

You can buy any car you want, and have it towed or trucked to your race track, museum, or "whatever" without any license whatsoever. At best you're a retard, more likely a retard and paid liar.

>Implying I need to pass anything to buy a car
Good joke user

everyone's life can be threatened

not everyone needs to drive

Actually no they don't. In America they both kill 31.3 people per million.

Actually a lot of European countries would refuse to let the peasantry be armed (revolts and all that). England was really one of the only places at the time to actively arm them.

Those pesky laws keeping you from implementing your liberal utopia. Damn founding fathers - bunch of old, white men, IKR?

Driving=privilege
Owning arms=Right

Over 1 million people die a year from car accidents. Vastly more than gun related deaths. Should we ban them as well? Cigarettes kill 400,000 a year. Should we ban them?

Well I mean how do you regulate blacksmiths?

Anyone could arm themselves with a weapon back then.

I'll bring this up with my sister.

I don't think the right to travel is guaranteed in your constitution.
Maybe you're thinking of our [superior] charter of rights and freedoms?

You're only off by 967,326.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

This. The basis of English military strength was this huge meritocratic experiment where every man was obliged to become "well regulated" at arms. In this way they both secured great manpower and also located talent which would be hidden in other systems.

NRA offers 100 of gun training and gun safety course. But fucking cunt ass bitches on the left are too fucking stupid to know that is what they do.

SLIDE THREAD
L
I
D
E

>I donthe image

Cars are most certainly not tagged and titled at every point of sale

t. someone who does not bother reading or understanding the constitution

>cars kill people

the people who created that document are savants and the usa they created is the best country to ever exist

so

fuck off

low iq faggot

Probably why there isn't a call for a nationwide ban on cars, huh?

>How about trying to update it?

The whole thing is created on the idea of inalienable rights, an inherently retarded concept.

>what is suicide

They were amendments. You know, "changes." You can create counter-amendments at ANY TIME.

You can't because no one agrees with you.

What I do when I wake up in brazil.

Nope, just for cars that are roadworthy.

then move faggot

Shall not be infringed.

>Gun training

But liberals lose their shit every time people are trained in weapons handling.

No. The Bill of Rights itself is NOT up for debate. Those first ten amendments are what ALLOW for the document to be living and breathing and what ALLOW for shitcunts like this moron To exist.

Already, the fifth, tenth, first, and second amendments have all come under attack. Possibly more I'm not aware of. And ALL have been in the name of "modern jurisprudence." The hear and now and the immediate ramifications are all that matters to these people. If you allow the Bill of Rights to be modified you ensure the destruction of individual liberty as we know it.

But hey! At least Bubba won't be able to buy his useless AR-15! (Omar will still be able to get his though but nothing's perfect I guess)

But how many more would they kill without regulations?

Here and now* fucking phone

There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Bill of Rights from being counter-amended. At all. It's the people's responsibility to maintain them, not the Constitution's and not the government's.