I grew up with fast cars

[cyclonefence]

My father collected fast cars, and he taught me to use them responsibly. I took Driver's Ed and all the safe driving courses AAA offers. I drive fast only when the road is clear of other traffic. I enjoy this sport, and I do it safely.

If you substitute "guns" for "cars" you get the justification some gun owners use to justify their possession of firearms. Responsible gun owners are well-trained and use their guns only in safe situations, for sport or hunting, both enjoyable recreational pursuits for them.

If I drive my fast car, even under the safest circumstances, when the highway is otherwise totally deserted and no one can possibly be injured by my indulging in this recreational activity, I am still subject to laws regarding the use of cars. If a cop catches me enjoying myself this way, I might end up in jail. If I modify my car so that it can go even faster than it was designed to go, I will at least be fined.

There is really no reason on earth that I should be allowed to use a car in this way, unless it's on a supervised track that's not open to the public, a club if you will, where we aficionados of dangerous driving can indulge ourselves without killing school children.

I see no reason that guns should be available for recreational use, including hunting, unless their use is similarly regulated. Target shooting (which is what my hunting friends say is the reason they own pistols as well as rifles) takes place in specially designated locations, and hunting is restricted to clearly demarcated regions, away from human dwellings, schools, churches, etc. Anyone carrying a loaded gun of any sort outside of these areas is subject to a high fine, imprisonment on a second offense (with seizure of all weapons and a lifetime ban on gun ownership).

It makes no sense that the lives of our children are being valued less than someone's need to pursue a hobby, no matter how safely it is carried out. The bad apples have spoiled the barrel for sensible gun users; they must live under draconian regulations because their recreational choice has been taken over by nutcases, and organized gun owners have not done anything about it. They've lost their chance to plead their case--it's too late.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. So true. Thank you for your clearly stated and very valid points. K&R. n/t

[kacekwl]

2. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

And something that should have been done a long time ago in a normal world.

[former9thward]

3. Hunting and target shooting already are in designated areas.

No one is hunting next to a school or church. Your arguments about cars are not a good analogy. Cars are not in the Constitution. Because of that there is no political will power to make the restrictions you want.

[cyclonefence]

4. People shoot in the woods behind my house

on land that belongs to me and that I have posted.

The right to recreational shooting is not guaranteed in the constitution.

No political stomach to fix this? I rest my case.

[former9thward]

6. If they are shooting on your land without your permission then they are trespassing.

That is the legal issue not guns.

[brooklynite]

5. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Until you can find a way to amend the Constitution, your opinion is moot.

[cyclonefence]

7. Guess you think the "well-regulated militia" part doesn't count

Do you seriously believe the Framers intended to protect recreational shooting? It sure doesn't sound that way to me.

[brooklynite]

10. It doesn't matter what you or I think the founding fathers thought...

The Courts, President, House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader etc. don't see this as an out.

[EX500rider]

13. Did the Framers require Militia membership after the Bill of Rights passed for firearm ownership?

No they did not and I bet they knew what they meant when they wrote it.

If the 1st Adm. was written:
"A well regulated press, being necessary to the freedom of a free state, the right of the people to free speech, shall not be infringed."

Would that mean only the press has free speech?

No it means the people cause it says the people.

[DVRacer]

8. Here is part of the problem with this

Would you say a 1969 Dodge Charger Hemi Daytona a fast car? I would say it was in its day. The issue with cars is how fast they are nowadays vs the past. A stock Honda Accord turbo is the same 0-60 as the aforementioned Charger. I’m deep in the car world especially SCCA and road courses. Today’s production cars are way overpowered for the average driver. Take my unassuming Veloster N 0-60 in 4.8s top speed of 160mph it is average by today’s standards. The speed demons of today are sub 3s 0-60 and top speeds of 200+mph. Because technology has improved, in the firearms industry thankfully that’s not the case. The most common rifle is actually far less powerful than it was 50 years ago. The more I look at it guns are less a problem than gun culture is. Now the question is how do we change that culture?

[cyclonefence]

9. Have you ever ridden

in a Tesla? They can go 0-60 in what seems like a nanosecond. Left my eyeballs in the headrest.

[DVRacer]

11. Yes I have lol

I drove a street car that did it in 1.8s with a man named Eddie Hill. He said he never thought he would see the day anyone with a regular license could buy something so fast. That conversation was swirling in my head as I typed.

[cyclonefence]

14. I rode in one belonging to a rich friend

and while it's a very nice car, that speed jolt was the only truly special thing I felt about riding in it, but holy moly.

[SYFROYH]

15. I disagree. Attempting to ban guns will likely backfire.

I disagree because if we do have a right to keep and bear arms, practicing and even recreational shooting is protected with reasonable regulations.


Backfiring: Nationally talk of gun bans leads to people buying more guns, failed gun control legislation, more pro-gun laws passed, and in some cases failed Democratic campaigns.