Help with rebuttal

Ask him where in the constitution it says that the people's right to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed. I know that many of the anti gov folks say that driving is an extension of the right to travel, but the big difference is that when the constitution was drafted, they had gun. There is no question as to what the forefathers meant when they said "arms".

1) drivers are licensed and trained. If the NRA had its way, there'd be no regulation, including no training or licensing.
Actually the NRA would prefer licenses and training that is one of the ways they make money. the licensing for autos is nothing but a money making opportunity for the state.
2) cars are NOT purpose built to put holes in animate and inanimate objects. neither are guns, they are designed to propel a projectile at high speed what people chose to do with them is what is your actual concern, would you stop all people from driving because a few people use them in violent crimes and accidents with deadly consequences?
3) According to Mass state authorities, I've been told that having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right The right to travel between states is a right really doesn't matter if the .gov says it is or not, if MA said the right to communicate was a privilege would you stop talking writing etc.?

see my bold responses

Originally Posted by A1850

So i got this from a guy i know when i posted an article by GOAL comparing guns to cars.

I think the analogy of comparing guns to cars seems to fall short.
1) drivers are licensed and trained. If the NRA had its way, there'd be no regulation, including no training or licensing.
2) cars are NOT purpose built to put holes in animate and inanimate objects.
3) According to Mass state authorities, I've been told that having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right

I really want to zing him and do it good. Any thoughts on how to respond? Im not great at putting thoughts into words. Im a bit
un-wordsmithish.

1) First, you do not need a drivers license to own or posess a car, only to drive it on the public ways maintained by the state. Second, drivers are licensed (to use public ways) but not trained. There is no requirement for any formal training in any state for a person over the age of 18. Many states require drivers UNDER 18 to have completed an approved drives education class. Once over 18 you only need to complete a proficiency test to obtain a license. In addition, anyone demonstrating proficent use shall be issued a drivers license.

2) Firearms are not purpose built to put holes in animate or inanimate objects (though many unlicensed tools, such as ice picks, spikes, drills and nails ARE purpose built to do just that). In addition, more people are killed by cars than firearms each year and MANY more crimes are committed with car PER CAR than crimes are committed with firearms PER FIREARM (DUI Arrests per car alone exceed all reported violent crime with a firearm per firearm)

3) Yes, a drivers license is a privillage not a right (except in California), however one only needs a drivers license to use a car on a public way and restricting the issuance of a drivers license can only be done by a court judgement following due process. Without a specific judgement against a person, any person able to demonstrate sufficient proficiency to use a car safely SHALL BE issued a drivers license.

Originally Posted by In God We Trust

Ask him where in the constitution it says that the people's right to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed. I know that many of the anti gov folks say that driving is an extension of the right to travel, but the big difference is that when the constitution was drafted, they had gun. There is no question as to what the forefathers meant when they said "arms".

Just to be a devils advocate, cars weren't invented when they wrote the constitution