Poll of the Day > As a truck driver I'm required to pass a physical every 2 yrs (gun control)

(+) Yeah! (+)

to retain my CDL. If I dont pass the physical, I cant operate a tractor trailer.

For my HAZMAT endorsement? I have to get a TSA background check. Renewed at least once every 5 years.

Im required to have insurance coverage on any vehicle I own. Insurance which covers death and disfigurement, as well as the usual protections for vehicles and property. Whether I were to kill someone with my vehicle accidentally or intentionally, or if someone were to borrow or steal my vehicle and go out and kill someone, my insurance may have to provide restitution.

All of this, so I can drive a tractor trailer.

Constitution protects the right to bear arms. Okay. I see no reason not to regulate guns much in the same way cars and trucks are regulated. People can still own and purchase firearms to their hearts desire.

Gun owners should be required to carry insurance for each individual gun they own. You want a full blown arsenal? Fine. Just pay the hundreds or thousands of dollars required to insure each weapon, every year. Have all the guns you can afford.

Physicals, including mental health evaluations, every two years. TSA threat assessments once every 5 years. If truckers have to do this, I see no reason why gun owners shouldnt. You dont pass your evaluation, local police are notified and confiscate all firearms until you can provide proper certification showing youve passed your screening.

But muh Constitution!

Hold up. No one is saying you cant have your guns. You just have to prove that youre capable and responsible enough to own them.

But what about people who own guns illegally?

Dumb argument. Many of these mass shootings are perpetrated by lawful gun owners. Not to mention, the fact that you cant prevent all of something bad happening doesnt mean you should do nothing about it.

My two cents. I know some of you will disagree. Im not going to argue. This makes sense to me. If it doesnt make sense to you, fine.
---

The constitution does not protect the right to drive trucks. Driving a truck is not intrinsically linked to democracy, capitalism and freedom of speech in the same way that using a firearm is.
---

Far-Queue posted...

to retain my CDL. If I dont pass the physical, I cant operate a tractor trailer.

For my HAZMAT endorsement? I have to get a TSA background check. Renewed at least once every 5 years.

Im required to have insurance coverage on any vehicle I own. Insurance which covers death and disfigurement, as well as the usual protections for vehicles and property. Whether I were to kill someone with my vehicle accidentally or intentionally, or if someone were to borrow or steal my vehicle and go out and kill someone, my insurance may have to provide restitution.

All of this, so I can drive a tractor trailer.

Constitution protects the right to bear arms. Okay. I see no reason not to regulate guns much in the same way cars and trucks are regulated. People can still own and purchase firearms to their hearts desire.

Gun owners should be required to carry insurance for each individual gun they own. You want a full blown arsenal? Fine. Just pay the hundreds or thousands of dollars required to insure each weapon, every year. Have all the guns you can afford.

Physicals, including mental health evaluations, every two years. TSA threat assessments once every 5 years. If truckers have to do this, I see no reason why gun owners shouldnt. You dont pass your evaluation, local police are notified and confiscate all firearms until you can provide proper certification showing youve passed your screening.

But muh Constitution!

Hold up. No one is saying you cant have your guns. You just have to prove that youre capable and responsible enough to own them.

But what about people who own guns illegally?

Dumb argument. Many of these mass shootings are perpetrated by lawful gun owners. Not to mention, the fact that you cant prevent all of something bad happening doesnt mean you should do nothing about it.

My two cents. I know some of you will disagree. Im not going to argue. This makes sense to me. If it doesnt make sense to you, fine.

It's stuff like this that's gonna help make things better. Regulate the fuck out of guns.

Blighboy posted...

The constitution does not protect the right to drive trucks. Driving a truck is not intrinsically linked to democracy, capitalism and freedom of speech in the same way that using a firearm is.

I don't get why you're defending the constitution like this. The 2nd Amendment obviously needs more work done to it. It's literally one sentence and it's "justifying" the murder of people everyday. Fuck that noise, seriously. Stop defending this moronicly worded amendment.
---

HeyImAlex posted...

I don't get why you're defending the constitution like this

He's Canadian and trolling
---

Blighboy posted...

Driving a truck is not intrinsically linked to democracy, capitalism and freedom of speech in the same way that using a firearm is.

Right, cause blasting someone in the face because you're a mentally disturbed person is a great way to exercise freedom of speech and spread capitalism.
---

Is he at least Canadian-American?
---

They're like dominos building up into a single house of cards. You can't pick and choose how the numbers add up.
---

HeyImAlex posted...

Is he at least Canadian-American?

lol, no. He's being sarcastic.
---

I'm an asshole Canadian which is basically an American
---

Blighboy posted...

I'm an asshole Canadian which is basically an American

Tru
---

It's a slippery slope, you don't wanna set a precedent of taking away rights from the constitution, if you start doing that then it's just a matter of time before it's disregarded completely and school shootings become the least of our worries

Id rather live in a place with school shootings than NK with the biggest military in the world
---

Muscles posted...

you don't wanna set a precedent of taking away rights from the constitution

i mean the point of the bill of rights is to create amendments to the constitution and change it, you know that right?
---

Muscles posted...

It's a slippery slope, you don't wanna set a precedent of taking away rights from the constitution

Because obviously there couldn't be some errors or oversights in a 300 year old document written in the days before the industrial revolution. Obviously the founding fathers foresaw all future technological and societal advancements and considered them during their writing process.

Muscles posted...

Id rather live in a place with school shootings than NK with the biggest military in the world

Personally, I'd rather live in neither. And thankfully, I do.
---

Muscles posted...

It's a slippery slope, you don't wanna set a precedent of taking away rights from the constitution,

Yeah, it's not like there's any precedent for making amendments to the constitution according to the needs of the present era or anything.
---

Far-Queue posted...

But muh Constitution!

Hold up. No one is saying you cant have your guns.

Yet.
---

Jen0125 posted...

i mean the point of the bill of rights is to create amendments to the constitution and change it, you know that right?

No. No, it's not.

It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic.

One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense.

That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get.

SushiSquid posted...

It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic.

One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense.

That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get.

This.

Restrictions, background checks, etc =/= the end to your Constitutional rights. Youre still free to pursue the ownership of firearms, theres simply more protections in place.

I like the idea of insuring firearms. There will never be a single wholesale solution to gun violence, but we have to do something.
---

Blighboy posted...

Driving a truck is not intrinsically linked to democracy, capitalism and freedom of speech in the same way that using a firearm is.

I am confused now...
---

Far-Queue posted...

Dumb argument.

Kinda describing this whole topic. This is probably the most ridiculous case of apples and oranges ever. All of that testing is designed to assess the user's ABILITY to operate the vehicle effectively -- the equivalent would be like making sure that gun owners are reasonably good shots, which doesn't do anything to stem the issue. More importantly, however, driving a vehicle is NOT a constitutionally protected right.

Even the insurance argument could likely be thrown out on the grounds that it violates the constitution by creating an undue burden, considering that voter ID laws are regularly rejected on the basis of imposing a much smaller cost to the user.

SushiSquid posted...

It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic.

One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense.

That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get.

What doesn't make sense is continuing to advocate that nonsensical propaganda while denying the prevailing trend and writing it off as a "slippery slope"

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
---

Grendel Prime posted...

SushiSquid posted...

It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic.

One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense.

That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get.

This.

Restrictions, background checks, etc =/= the end to your Constitutional rights. Youre still free to pursue the ownership of firearms, theres simply more protections in place.

I like the idea of insuring firearms. There will never be a single wholesale solution to gun violence, but we have to do something.

Question: What would firearm insurance accomplish?
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

Grendel Prime posted...

SushiSquid posted...

It's funny to me that the argument always seems to follow what we see in this topic.

One side says we need common-sense gun law reform. The other said says you can't take their guns away, which makes no fucking sense.

That's not realistic and it's stupid. Almost nobody is actually arguing taking guns away. Stop with this slippery slope bull shit. You've got cars, planes, chemicals, and all sorts of stuff that's highly regulated. We just made it safer for everyone by making that stuff harder to get.

This.

Restrictions, background checks, etc =/= the end to your Constitutional rights. Youre still free to pursue the ownership of firearms, theres simply more protections in place.

I like the idea of insuring firearms. There will never be a single wholesale solution to gun violence, but we have to do something.

Question: What would firearm insurance accomplish?

Given that it's a quintessential bad-faith argument, it's basically the equivalent of the jellybean test for voting: It's just a backdoor method of violating a constitutionally protected right which, in all likelihood, would get struck down in a heartbeat by SCOTUS.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

Question: What would firearm insurance accomplish?

It would price out poor, law-abiding would-be gun owners while doing nothing to stop criminals from getting guns, while likely forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminal behavior. What's wrong with that?
---

Most NRA members actually support Universal background checks. The NRA lobbies against background checks anyway.
---

Blighboy posted...

Driving a truck is not intrinsically linked to democracy, capitalism and freedom of speech in the same way that using a firearm is.

Bad thread obviously but this made me laugh.
Guns are linked to democracy?

No son, the pen is democracy, the gun is communism. Democratic countries are made and run with the stroke of a pen, communist countries are made and run with guns.
---

SinisterSlay posted...

Democratic countries are made and run with the stroke of a pen

Spoken like a true high school sophomore.
---

Rasmoh posted...

SinisterSlay posted...

Democratic countries are made and run with the stroke of a pen

Spoken like a true high school sophomore.

It's called a Canadian actually
---

Look at TC with his reasonable and common sense idea towards protecting the 2nd amendment and taking steps to keep our country safe

How dare him
---

Tractor trailers kill way more people than guns
>_>

ASlaveObeys posted...

Tractor trailers kill way more people than guns
>_>

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-trucks/fatalityfacts/large-trucks

A total of 3,986 people died in large truck crashes in 2016. Seventeen percent of these deaths were truck occupants, 66 percent were occupants of cars and other passenger vehicles, and 16 percent were pedestrians, bicyclists or motorcyclists. The number of people who died in large truck crashes was 27 percent higher in 2016 than in 2009, when it was the lowest it has been since the collection of fatal crash data began in 1975. The number of truck occupants who died was 47 percent higher than in 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.

---

Yellow posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

Tractor trailers kill way more people than guns
>_>

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-trucks/fatalityfacts/large-trucks

A total of 3,986 people died in large truck crashes in 2016. Seventeen percent of these deaths were truck occupants, 66 percent were occupants of cars and other passenger vehicles, and 16 percent were pedestrians, bicyclists or motorcyclists. The number of people who died in large truck crashes was 27 percent higher in 2016 than in 2009, when it was the lowest it has been since the collection of fatal crash data began in 1975. The number of truck occupants who died was 47 percent higher than in 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.

He was making a joke, champ. Fuckin Christ.
---

Yo, one stat only goes by death the other is injuries and deaths.
I think someone is showing some bias...

ASlaveObeys posted...

Yo, one stat only goes by death the other is injuries and deaths.
I think someone is showing some bias...

That's why I only highlighted the relevant numbers.

Cacciato posted...

He was making a joke, champ. Fuckin Christ.

Could you tell by the tone of his voice?
---

The NRA... that is all that needs to be said on the topic of guns in America.
---

MacrossSpecial posted...

The NRA... that is all that needs to be said on the topic of guns in America.

Thats clearly not true at all. The fact that you think you can deduce it to something like that is childish.
---

tc must really hate poor ppl

Lol @ "with my guns the government can't push me around!" people... The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't just some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain. I don't get why France is such a punchline...
---

What part of 'Shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain.

hardly the only reason, but certainly a big factor. you are truly delusional if you think you can reduce the complexities of a military victory so easily.

KaptainKiro posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain.

hardly the only reason, but certainly a big factor. you are truly delusional if you think you can reduce the complexities of a military victory so easily.

Implying what America had was a military.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

KaptainKiro posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain.

hardly the only reason, but certainly a big factor. you are truly delusional if you think you can reduce the complexities of a military victory so easily.

Implying what America had was a military.

@Kyuubi4269 its odd seeing you post opinions on America after getting called out for posting things that are blatantly wrong
---

KaptainKiro posted...

tc must really hate poor ppl

Guess TC is a Republican, then.
---

Cacciato posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

KaptainKiro posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain.

hardly the only reason, but certainly a big factor. you are truly delusional if you think you can reduce the complexities of a military victory so easily.

Implying what America had was a military.

@Kyuubi4269 its odd seeing you post opinions on America after getting called out for posting things that are blatantly wrong

Lol coming from you?
---

Mead posted...

Look at TC with his reasonable and common sense idea towards protecting the 2nd amendment and taking steps to keep our country safe

How dare him

---

Nothing about his proposal is reasonable though. All it would do is create a price wall for poor citizens who obey the law, which is ironic as they are one of the groups that needs guns the most. Not to mention it would do literally nothing to prevent a mass shooting.
---

Rasmoh posted...

Nothing about his proposal is reasonable though. All it would do is create a price wall for poor citizens who obey the law, which is ironic as they are one of the groups that needs guns the most. Not to mention it would do literally nothing to prevent a mass shooting.

Keeping guns out of poor people's hands sounds like a great idea. It's not usually the rich and well off that shoot people.

If you ever really want to fix things, you need to drop the notion that guns are needed for protection. As long as you believe that, the violence will never stop.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

KaptainKiro posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain.

hardly the only reason, but certainly a big factor. you are truly delusional if you think you can reduce the complexities of a military victory so easily.

Implying what America had was a military.

Jeez, youre still mad about that tea?
---

KaptainKiro posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only reason America even became independent was because France helped them in a number of ways to spite Britain. It wasn't some plucky militiamen, it was an empire stretched too thin fighting another empire and prioritizing somewhere else within their domain.

hardly the only reason, but certainly a big factor. you are truly delusional if you think you can reduce the complexities of a military victory so easily.

Well, if you remove the French from the equation, as in supplying American troops and fighting Britain elsewhere. Say they didn't have an empire or any ambition and sat there, the colonies would've remained under the boot of King George, easily. That's why I said "only" - without them, there was no chance.
---

SinisterSlay posted...

If you ever really want to fix things, you need to drop the notion that guns are needed for protection. As long as you believe that, the violence will never stop.

Arguably, people don't want the violence to stop, it's what keeps those with more power at arms distance. There's no violence in an authoritarian dystopia.
---

SinisterSlay posted...

Keeping guns out of poor people's hands sounds like a great idea.

I agree wholeheartedly, the poor really shouldn't be able to defend themselves or their property.

SinisterSlay posted...

you need to drop the notion that guns are needed for protection.

But they are literally the only effective means of protection for huge amounts of people. If you have a more effective way for my 5'6" 130 lb wife to defend herself against a 6'2" 230lb attacker, I'd love to hear it.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Well, if you remove the French from the equation, as in supplying American troops and fighting Britain elsewhere. Say they didn't have an empire or any ambition and sat there, the colonies would've remained under the boot of King George, easily. That's why I said "only" - without them, there was no chance.

Did you know that if you change up the entire circumstances surrounding a particular situation, the outcome might be different? What are the odds?
---