Posted on Apr 8, 2018
'Dumbest Argument' is that Gun Owners Get a Pass on Comparable Laws
1.53K
21
7
9
9
0
Another key is that nowhere is driving considered a right. Driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed in the Consitution. Further no attempt has been made to add an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to drive. We have added an amendment banning alcohol, and an amendment repealing that ban. We have amendments protecting minority and women when it comes to voting, yet nothing about driving. So trying to compare something that is a privilege to a constitutional right is a leap to begin with.
'Dumbest Argument' is that Gun Owners Get a Pass on Comparable Laws
Posted from ammoland.comPosted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
3
3
0
I would argue, though, that driving is a right under the 9th amendment. We have an inalienable right to travel.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
1SG Cj Grisham Travel yes, drive, no. The travel argument is often used by "Sovereign Citizens" as an excuse for not having a valid driver's license or a registration on their vehicles. It is constantly ending with them going to jail. Additionally, the 9th amendment is supposed to serve the purpose of stating that all of the rights a citizen holds cannot be spelled out in this document so we are throwing in a catch all saying that whatever is not specified is held as a right of the people. It is the most trampled on of any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It may as well not be there it is so abused by lawmakers. I am not saying it is right, but it is reality.
(0)
(0)
SSG Erik McKinster
Just because the ninth amendment is abused, that doesn't make it any let apart of the Constitution.
You're saying that travel is a right but not driving. So what? Walking? Horses? Give me a break. Are you using the same argument that the anti-gun folks use? The modern semiautomatic rifles weren't around when the Constitution was written so they're not covered? You know what are problem it's? You don't REALLY know what it means to be free. You've been taught you don't have the rights that you really do, and you've bought it.
You're saying that travel is a right but not driving. So what? Walking? Horses? Give me a break. Are you using the same argument that the anti-gun folks use? The modern semiautomatic rifles weren't around when the Constitution was written so they're not covered? You know what are problem it's? You don't REALLY know what it means to be free. You've been taught you don't have the rights that you really do, and you've bought it.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Laws against robbery, rape, assault etc. are "malum in se" laws, and provide punishment for acts wrongful by their very nature.
"Gun control" laws are "malum prohibitum" laws, which make morally neutral acts --- such as carrying a gun for self-defense, subject to punishment. That type of law is easily perverted into a web of bureaucratic rules designed to restrict gun rights, and to confuse and entrap lawful citizens while pretending to be aimed at criminals.
The technique is described by Jack, the tyrannical leader of the choir boys in "Lord of the Flies":
“We’ll have rules!” he cried excitedly. “LOTS OF RULES! Then when anyone
breaks ’em–”
“Whee–oh!”
“Wacco!”
“Bong!”
“Doink!” (EMPHASIS ADDED)
"Gun control" laws are "malum prohibitum" laws, which make morally neutral acts --- such as carrying a gun for self-defense, subject to punishment. That type of law is easily perverted into a web of bureaucratic rules designed to restrict gun rights, and to confuse and entrap lawful citizens while pretending to be aimed at criminals.
The technique is described by Jack, the tyrannical leader of the choir boys in "Lord of the Flies":
“We’ll have rules!” he cried excitedly. “LOTS OF RULES! Then when anyone
breaks ’em–”
“Whee–oh!”
“Wacco!”
“Bong!”
“Doink!” (EMPHASIS ADDED)
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google