Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

srican69

(1,426 posts) Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:11 PM Dec 2012

another legal question. Why is operating a motor vehicle a privilege and operating a gun a right? [View all]

I am being serious.

what is the legal basis? Is it because - cars have to be operated on shared space such as roads - while guns are used to defend the property you own? ( stand your ground - dilutes the difference even more ).

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

another legal question. Why is operating a motor vehicle a privilege and operating a gun a right? [View all] srican69 Dec 2012 OP

Because of the stupid fucking 2nd amendment LibAsHell Dec 2012 #1

I always have had the faith that law, in the long run, is fair and impartial ... srican69 Dec 2012 #5

The Constitution? n/t jmg257 Dec 2012 #2

Cars are not in the Bill of Rights. Guns are. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #3

Because there were no motor vehicles in 1789? yellowcanine Dec 2012 #4

+1 joeybee12 Dec 2012 #6

+1 SugarShack Dec 2012 #13

The basis for the "right" is the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #7

It has only been interpreted that way for 4 years. If you throw you lot with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, byeya Dec 2012 #14

Even if one concedes that it is an individual right though it does not mean no regulation. yellowcanine Dec 2012 #19

Absolutely DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #31

The right to self-defense ranks at or near the top of natural rights. Arms are effective tools for jody Dec 2012 #8

I'd be fine... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #9

We have the "right to travel" (an unenumerated right protected by the ninth) X_Digger Dec 2012 #10

The Constitution. Also, public roads Recursion Dec 2012 #11

Prior to 2008 it was perfectly legit for a jurisdiction to ban handguns. In 2008, the Filthy Five of byeya Dec 2012 #12

The 4 minority justices recognized the right, citing PA & VT constitutions but held the 2nd was not jody Dec 2012 #15

translation please ... I have a PhD in systems engineering but somehow its not helping srican69 Dec 2012 #16

Perhaps you need to read the Heller decision. I'm not impressed by your PhD. jody Dec 2012 #18

what !! really srican69 Dec 2012 #21

Big deal what if I claimed to have two? Would that impress you? nt jody Dec 2012 #23

Honestly - it would. srican69 Dec 2012 #29

It most certainly does not. You are wrong. You are spreading NRA lies. byeya Dec 2012 #17

Read the Heller decision and cite passages to rebut my assertion. jody Dec 2012 #20

Delicate Flowers always get the 2nd Amendment wrong bongbong Dec 2012 #25

Your posts suggest you have not read the Heller opinion and dissent. I would give you a link but in jody Dec 2012 #28

LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #30

Yes, there are a number of parrots spreading NRA lies on DU bongbong Dec 2012 #26

In 1981 Morton Grove. IL. banned the ownership of handguns and on appeal the appeals byeya Dec 2012 #22

It would be a right were we writing the Constitution today in the spirt of those writing it then. ieoeja Dec 2012 #24

Serious answer, in my mind a flawed interpretation nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27