What if cars were regulated like guns?

Post Reply New Topic

If motor vehicles were regulated like firearms:

--To purchase a motor vehicle from a licensed dealer, you would be required to pass a federal background check. In some states, buying a used vehicle from a private seller would be illegal because doing so exploits a “car-show loophole.” You would be required to possess a federal license to buy or sell more than a certain number of motor vehicles each year. It would be illegal to buy small motor vehicles anywhere but within your state of residence. Large vehicles (trucks, SUVs) could be purchased outside your state of residence only in some cases. Large, powerful vehicles are considered assault vehicles with no legitimate purpose. Small, inexpensive vehicles are considered disposable and appealing only to criminals. If you have ever had a mental illness you may not even touch a vehicle, much less own one. If you have ever been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanor or any felony (including a non-violent felony), you may never again touch a vehicle, much less own one. Also, black vehicles would considered way too scary with their military-like appearance and would be restricted from ownership.

--In some states (notably Massachusetts), when you receive your motor-vehicle owner-identification card (COID), you can go to a licensed dealer and shop for a vehicle. After passing your federal background check, and paying for your vehicle, you would be required to wait 10 days. You couldn’t pick up the vehicle yourself, as your COID does not actually allow you to drive your vehicle. A dealer’s employee will deliver it to your house, where you will have to get an upgraded license from the state to actually drive it. Your local police chief has the final decision on whether you’ll be granted a license to drive your vehicle on the street, and doesn’t have to have a reason to deny it.

--You would be required to be 21 years of age to get a driver license. You could drive on private property all you want until then. In some states, you can drive at 18 years of age, but only if there is no gasoline in your tank.

--In some states, your motor vehicle would be limited to holding only 10 gallons of gasoline or less. Anything over 10 gallons is considered necessary for any practical use and just just plain dangerous. Even if your tank had the capacity for more … your vehicle would be limited to carrying only 10 gallons or less at any time. Certain cities will or can have different laws, and may enforce laws that go against state laws.

--Any motor vehicle which was manufactured after 1986 and capable of going over 55 MPH would cost 20 times what a speed-limited vehicle costs, and take six months to receive government approval to purchase. The same rules apply to other vehicle accessories like mufflers. If you put a muffler on your vehicle, or modify it to go over 55 MPH, you you would violate federal law unless you have a federal class III vehicle-manufacturing license. But, those are virtually impossible to get except for the military or police. You would only able to purchase vehicles with manual transmissions. Any vehicle with an automatic transmission is restricted for purchase to those with class III licenses. Because you wouldn’t have to shift gears, you might run over more people. In California, you couldn’t have a steering wheel that is not completely solid. Any steering wheel with space to make a proper grip is restricted to military and police personnel. Vehicles for use in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and other states would be regulated by cosmetic attributes. An engine hood or a radiator (barrel shroud), is restricted for purchase to those with class III licenses. Six-position adjustable driver seats are considered “assault vehicle” components. Cosmetic modifications to your vehicle would make you a felon. You would need a special federal license to work on or fabricate parts for vehicles.

--Mufflers or other sound-suppressing devices designed to reduce, minimize or otherwise eliminate the noise generated by fuel-burning engines are not permissible without a federal class III license. Motor-vehicle dealers are forbidden to sell vehicles having the aforementioned devices to persons not in possession of a class III at the time of sale. In such cases, car dealers must remove said noise-reducing devices from the vehicle if the customer does not possess a class III. It is then the responsibility of the customer to apply for and acquire a class III prior to installing a muffler or other sound-suppressing device.

--Safe-driving advocates would argue that all vehicles must be equipped with “Smart” technology that only allows the registered owner to operate the vehicle, and only if their biometric data and RFID bracelet are a 100-percent match. If the data is corrupted or the RFID bracelet loses signal at any point in time, the vehicle will automatically lock the steering, brakes and throttle and be immobilized until the signal returns.

--If you plan any interstate-driving trips, you should carefully research the laws in every state you would be passing through. Some states won’t accept your state’s driver license and won't grant licenses to anyone but residents of their state. Some states don’t allow driving on public roads unless you are rich or politically connected. It is illegal to enter Washington, D.C., with any vehicle, vehicle parts or even so much as an empty gasoline can. If you believe in the constitutionally protected right to travel, you are probably a terrorist.

--All vehicles would be required to be equipped with micro-stamping technology that leaves a legible, easily identifiable serial number in the tire track -- regardless of any real-world feasibility.

--No gasoline with an octane rating higher than 85 could be sold for public use, as high-octane fuel is simply too dangerous for citizens to handle.

--Responsible drivers drive concealed. Open driving is just for loudmouth attention grabbers who want to provoke police encounters. And, heaven forbid a child should see an openly driven motor vehicle. Accidentally letting someone see your vehicle was a crime in Texas until the governor there supported a bill to liberalize vehicle laws by legalizing open driving. If you like vehicle shows or have an interest in vehicles, you may be accused of being a criminal or risk being “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

--Drivers wanting automated driving aids, including cruise-control, automatic lane-keeping, doppler braking, night vision, infrared, heads-up displays or radar systems, will be considered “persons of interest” due to their inferred subversive motives. Only assassins want that stuff....

--All metal motor-vehicles would be banned, you need a soft vehicle made out of carbon so it does less damage.

--You could build or buy all motor-vehicle components without regulation except the steering wheel, the steering wheel has to be regulated and have a serial number, and purchased through a dealer.

--Post offices everywhere, schools, churches and airports in some states don’t have parking lots because it’s against the law to drive or park there. Almost 0.001 percent of drivers might start running people down with their assault vehicles. Progressive society agrees that vehicle-free zones are an acceptable compromise for public safety.

--All imported motor vehicles must have no similarity to any vehicle used by military or police personnel anywhere in the world, and are restricted to sporting purposes only. Because protecting ourselves from tyranny is all about sporting.

Finally, if motor vehicles were regulated like firearms, they might not kill several times as many people as firearms do.

Imagine if guns were regulated like planes, then you'd need to train for several years to be allowed to fly one, including logging thousands of hours on "gun simulators".

Or if guns were like parrots, then you wouldn't be allowed to own one at all (of course, parrots don't kill nearly as many people as guns).

Absurdist comparison is absurd.

You can own a parrot bred in captivity.

Cars Don't Kill People, People Kill People...

Guns are more icky than cars.

I didn't bother reading the entire novel that is this tiresome topic, maybe I'll wait for the movie to come out, but one thing I know for sure, there would be a lot less idiotic drivers who could run me over in a split second even when I'm obeying the rules of a pedestrian i.e. walking across the street at the lights, not distracted by texting or a cell phone.

The traffic is horrible this time of year. Not only are there more tourists who come from places where they don't care less about traffic laws but there is a lot more construction. This past Friday I called a cab to take me home from the mall and it took nearly 20 minutes because of bumper-to-bumper traffic. Apparently there either was road construction done at the worst possible time when traffic is heavy, or there had been in an car accident.

I don't feel safe walking anywhere.

...what if you were required to go through the same hoops to operate a gun as you do a car? That's the question you should be asking. Perhaps Gun Ed is needed, and no one is allowed to operate a gun under a certain age just like a car. After passing a written exam, a learner's gun permit is obtained and you have to keep your gun at a shooting range and can only shoot it there. After a period of say, six months from the time you pass you written exam, you can take the "driving" or in this case, "shooting" part and once you pass this, you are allowed a full license and can keep a gun at your residence, or business, if applicable.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Right. And you're required to carry gun insurance whenever you are shooting outside of the range. And if you eff up, they take your license to shoot it away for a while. And if you get caught shooting w/o license or w/o insurance, the fines are huge.

One is a constitutively protected right whilst the other is a licensed privilege. There is actually a big difference.

Why not teach it in public schools?


Cars are actually more dangerous and they are operated on the open road in very close proximity to otehr cars. I've seen a buttload of nasty bloody accidents but I've yet to see my first nasty bloody gun incident.


I'm sure it does seem like a plan to you but let me tell you what's wrong with it. Do you ever hear screams for anti-car legislation in the wake of a nasty multi- car pileup on the freeway? I never have.
However, after any noteworthy shooting that's the first thing we hear about. With the licensing and scrutiny on anything seen as icky like guns there will be abuse at every opportunity.

Just what exactly is your justification for all these additional controls on inanimate objects? By now I'd hope you've gotten past your little personal crisis over the two year old shooting his mother in Bumf#ck Idaho or wherever it was....

Right, and give those sociopathic bully cops that you all are always complaining about more reasons to f**k with people and give those evil contractor operated prisons more business to grow fat off of.
Just swell.

Whether gun ownership is a right or a privilege is not as clear as you make it seem.

Since the 'right' to keep and bear arms is often removed from some people under some circumstances, most legal experts are pretty sure it's a privilege.

I doubt that this is the place for an argument over what the 2nd amendment means. It boils down to what you think that first comma is about.



I agree completely. Gun safety and basic marksmanship should be taught in school, probably in Jr. High, where the students are unlikely to learn anything that doesn't involve motor control. Frankly i don't think they should bother to teach any academics for 7th and 8th grade.

Start 'em off with .22 calibre rifles, move on to .22 calibre pistols, eventually move on to target shooting with bolt action rifles that have some kick.

And take safety and respect for the gun very, very seriously throughout the courses.

One of my ex-navy buddies says that he learned everything he needed to know about rifle safety from Gunnery Sergeant Wilson.

He said, gunny Wilson looked at him and said "MAGGOT!" (they don't get to call the enlisted maggot anymore), "IF YOU POINT THAT WEAPON AT ME, YOU BETTER SHOOT ME, AND YOU BETTER KILL ME WITH THE FIRST SHOT! BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, I WILL BEAT YOU INTO SO MUCH OATMEAL!!"

Gunny Wilson was a pretty big guy, and he wasn't sure that he could be killed with a single shot.

He made sure not to point his weapon anywhere near Gunny Wilson.



People go driving a lot more frequently than they go waving a gun around.

It might be interesting to see comparative statistics for how many incidents of a loaded weapon being drawn outside of a shooting range result in a casualty, vs. driving on a public road.



Yes actually. Every time there is an ugly accident there are people calling for lower speed limits, even though speed is usually not a factor, as much as speed vs. road conditions.



I think it has something to do with it being an inanimate object that is great at putting holes in things at a distance.

Wait - I hate cops, I admit to that. Power tripping as*holes, most of them. The awful majority giving the few good cops a bad name. And i think privately operated prisons have been demonstrated to be little more than an opening for abuse.

But i don't remember the last time i brought that up here at WP. Or if i did?

Anyway, yes, I think any time you carry a weapon in public, a cop should be able to politely ask you for proof of registration. And gun insurance should probably be a thing.

Certainly if you draw a weapon in the presence of a LEO, they should get to ask, right?

Don't worry - if you don't have a history of violence, it'll be cheap for you. I'll bet there will be discounts for securely locking gun safes and whatnot.

Last edited by blauSamstag on 12 Jul 2015, 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wonders what it would take to get a concealed car carry permit.

Depends where you live.

Here in Utah, you have to sit through a class for a couple hours. That's pretty much it.

And people b***h about having to do that.

It doesn't matter what "legal experts" believe. The U.S. Supreme Court was the final word when it determined in the matter of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...."