Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
Really though, who needs to go 100 mph anyway? Why not outlaw cars that go that fast?
nukemycorndog nukemycorndog 41-45, M 13 Answers Jan 15, 2013 in Community

Your Response

Cancel

They are going to outlaw the cars too. Just wait. We will all be driving electric in the next decade.

Best Answer

There could be truth in that. Driverless cars are also looming on the horizon so we may no longer be able to drive eventually.

Best Answer

Oooooh I might like that part! A built in chauffeur! lol

Best Answer

A rich person could answer this better, but they put "a ton of tard" restrictions on expensive fast cars in America. Its not really about the guns...

Best Answer

Because the illuminati is trying to weaken America so we have no defense when they plan another attack just like they did with 9/11

Best Answer

Perhaps they will do that in the future. Cars are a means of transport, not weapons, though, so it isn't quite the same. 30 round magazines have no real purpose other than to kill.

Best Answer

transport at 100 mph? Who needs to go that fast? that sort of speed is dangerous and might kill kids inside and outside the car!

Best Answer

Campaign to have speed limiters fitted to all vehicles if it bothers you. Unlike guns, cars were not designed with the purpose of killing in mind so they aren't under scrutiny in quite the same way.

Best Answer

Ambulances, police, and fire fighters for a few. Additionally, we have specially designated roadways for personal high-speed transportation. The continent is quite large and can take considerable time to travel across at lower speeds.

Best Answer

They probably would if you started driving cars at 100 mph in classrooms and killing over 20 kids and adults in less than 2 minutes.

Best Answer

Look, I support the 2nd amendment, but I acknowledge that there are some limitations. You obviously wouldn't want people buying tanks and keeping them in their driveways. It's a matter of drawing the line and understanding why. Anyone that thinks they need more than a dozen or so rounds for home defense should probably consider associating with different people, ones that aren't terrorists or organized criminals.

Best Answer

Xuan, the 2nd Amendment isn't about home defense. It was about forming a militia (the first part of it), and preventing government tyranny (the second part of it with the words "shall not be infringed"). It isn't about hunting, sportsmen, or home defense.

Best Answer

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Well regulated militia. Perhaps only the members and affiliates of the militia should be permitted to possess firearms. If you interpret this to mean EVERY person it including ex-cons, the mentally unstable, and non-citizens.
Key word being interpret. Honestly, it's horribly vague. Perhaps before we go passing any more laws about it, we should ratify a more precise iteration of it. One that defines what counts as a "military style" weapon and all the lovely points of argument you hear about.

Best Answer

The citizens ARE the militia. The Japanese didn't land troops in California in WWII because the citizens were armed: a defacto "militia". Also this citizen militia took up arms against the British when they tried to confiscate everyone's guns. We take our freedoms for granted, and many don't realize that tyranny is just one step behind free people. Take heed of history - hitler disarmed the germans, stalin disarmed the russians, mao the chinese, and on and on. If the US can't deal with 12 million illegal aliens, how will they ever confiscate 180million firearms? God Bless our founding fathers!

Best Answer

I'm sure glad they put in the "well regulated" part. Additionally, Hitler did not institute weapon bans against most people, Jews and non-German citizens being exceptions as they were not allowed to posses or manufacture weapons. He in fact used mostly the same laws as the Weimar Republic before him and actually relaxed their regulations for majority of German citizens, making most weapons and ammunition aside from handguns more easily accessible and lowering the legal age of purchase from 20 to 18.
That aside, I personally agree with the founders that well regulated militias are necessary for the security of a free state. Discipline and training are required in order to safely operate a gun, and frankly, I would not trust most the people I see on the block with one. Not that they are criminals, but that they are clumsy and ignorant of weapons. That's fine, because most of them have no interest in guns, but it just takes one whacko to walk up to a school and do the unthinkable. In my opinion, the states need to agree upon a clear and distinct registration process that accounts for safety training, criminal history, and mental health for private ownership of a weapon. Is that expensive, yes. Is it worth it, yes.

Best Answer
1 More Response

As long as gun and cars are peni$ substitutes for people with inferiority complexes and unstable egos, nothing will be done about either. And a lot of people (no nationalities mentioned) have a lot of growing up to do yet.

Best Answer

the car wont get far enough into the movie theater or class room to kill any one

Best Answer

Related Questions