They're coming for our guns... er ah Cars - Luckovich

[groundloop]

[Electric Monk]

1. k&r

[spanone]

2. Bwahahahahaaa luv luckovich

[napkinz]

3. K&R!

[perdita9]

4. I love the expression on the cat's face

"How the hell did I wind up living in a house with a right-winger?"

[zentrum]

5. Actually, RWs

…..are against the seat belt laws for real. They are against the helmet laws for bikers.

The only "freedoms" they are against are: same sex marriage, letting women have control over their own bodies and the freedom to say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Xmas.

Hypocrisy without limits.

[hunter]

8. Yep.

They don't want regulations on deadly dangerous tools like guns or automobiles, but they have shit-fits about same sex couples, couples whose skin tones don't match, people who don't say "Merry Christmas," and people who don't see unintended or medically dangerous pregnancies as the punishment of a vengeful god.

[groundloop]

9. All too true

Luckovich has certainly been on a roll lately. Far far too many easy targets for him, unfortunately.

[MillennialDem]

10. You're forgetting drugs, trans people, lgbt military service, local control, euthanasia, and other

things. Claiming they're about liberty and freedom except for a couple of issues is nonsense.

[DhhD]

6. Love that 60's hairstyle, the Beehive.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

7. Hahaha :) n/t

[SunSeeker]

11. K & R

[Elmergantry]

12. Well actually

Unlike firearms, driving is not a constitutionally protected right, so the point of this is? One who is opposed to regulation on abortion citing a "slippery slope" should have the same concerns in regards to firearm ownership as both are constitutionally protected. But consistency is typically not a feature politics.

[reddread]

13. actually, they did come for the cars

I dont think that cartoon is quite accurate, I suspect jan 1 68 might have been a date that shoulder belts became necessary.
Fairly certain seat belts were standard a few years before that, along with a number of much needed interior safety measures.
By the time they instituted bumper collision requirements, they had come for our cars and put an end to the previous era of
automobile design.
A decent looking car hasnt been built since.

[Elmergantry]

14. Then they came for the decent looking cars...

But I didn't care, as I didn't have a decent looking car...

Then they came for my Pinto....

[reddread]

15. dont go there!

I have three.

[Elmergantry]

16. 3 Pintos?

1 to drive, 2 for parts?

Are they collector items yet like the Covair and Edsel?

[reddread]

17. works of art

71 runabout in baby blue
72 wagon in candy apple red
74 sedan in a handsome dark green

once the wagon is converted, this will be a fairly large collection of V8 Pintos.
I consider that my insanity certification.

[Elmergantry]

19. Nothing wrong with that.

I love old stuff of all kinds. I say new is fleeting, but vintage is forever.

[NutmegYankee]

25. January 1968 was when seat belts (lap belts) became required equipment nationwide on new cars

Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

[reddread]

26. Perhaps the shoulder belts at the same time?

found this response in a search,
"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 mandated front outboard shoulder belts on all cars made starting Jan 1, 1968. Convertibles were excepted. Prior to that, shoulder belts WERE an avaible option"

and this from another
"1964 was the year in which most U. S. cars came with front seat lap belts; by 1965, all states had laws requiring them. Lap belts were still the belts of choice — despite medical evidence that in accident conditions lap belts had the potential to cause separation of the lumbar vertebrae."
I know lap belts in Fords became essentially standard by 66 and the shoulder belts showed up around the time of that standard.

[NutmegYankee]

28. Shoulder belts for front seats. Lap for others

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, effective January 1, 1968, requires either a lap belt alone, or a combination lap and shoulder belt, at each seating posi­tion of any new passenger cars. A combination lap and shoulder belt is required at the front outboard seating posi­tions on all such vehicles except convertibles.

[groundloop]

18. well then change the fucking constitution, or reinterpret it

Everyone conveniently forgets about the part where it mentions being part of a well regulated militia. There was obviously a reason that was included.

The point is that there are a hell of a lot of nut-jobs running around with firearms (whose sole purpose for existing is to do great harm to whatever or whomever gets in front of them), doesn't it make sense that we'd want to at least get back a little control over who can purchase them?

[Elmergantry]

20. Exactly.

>>well then change the fucking constitution, or reinterpret it

Until then, comparing restrictions on a constitutional right to something that isn't is absurd.


>>The point is that there are a hell of a lot of nut-jobs running around with firearms (whose sole purpose for existing is to do great harm to whatever or whomever gets in front of them),

No there isn't. Statistics prove it.

[houston16revival]

21. During the Cold War

I knew a guy who had some right wing, ex-military type gossip circuit friends

He always told me the evil Russian Marxists would invade if they could and take - get this -
our refrigerators! And (presumably) ship them to the Soviet Union.

[liberalnarb]

22. Thats great!

[OneCrazyDiamond]

23. There is at least one loophole.

Buses are vehicles too, unless the driver counts.

[NutmegYankee]

24. Interestingly enough, there is no requirement to install seatbelts in older cars.

Federal law only requires cars to meet the safety standards of the date of manufacture and this is generally the case in all states as well. In Connecticut, seat belts were not mandatory equipment until 1963, so the owner of a 1960 Chevy isn't required to install or wear one and is exempt from the mandatory enforcement of seat belts.

When I had an older car that was exempt, I did retrofit the car for lap belts (which required some backing plates under the floor), but that was only because I grew up with seat belts and don't feel safe driving without them.

[reddread]

27. you arent safe without them

worth the effort to upgrade.
i enjoy wearing and using mine habitually.

[Rafale]

29. Probably will be a few personal attacks for my saying this but

The cartoon, albeit funny, is a poor analogy; having a car is not a right either by case law or the Constitution, although it kills as many people as a gun annually. An accurate analogy might go something like this:

-You must get a college education before engaging in free expression, specifically free speech.
-You must not have had any traffic citations (convicted or not) before obtaining a car.
-You must pass religious certification before being allowed to worship.
-You must pass a literacy test before being allowed to vote.

If you fail these requirements, you have no right to appeal or general Due Process.

Kind of scary. Never in my long life did I think Liberalism would move away from expanding basic rights to taking away rights. No wonder people are feed up with Democrats and Republicans. Really hope Senator Sanders can win this one. Jesus, sometimes it seems like we are no longer a nations of laws.

I'll be out in the parking lot available for flogging.

[NutmegYankee]

30. Liberalism never moved away from protecting basic rights.

It's just that some on the left moved away from liberalism. The Communist parties of the 20th century were economic left leaning but autocratic with the normal societal form as a totalitarian state. That characteristic still finds a home with some of my fellow lefties, much to my dismay.

To be fair, the right also has its autocratic branches. The religious extremists are the classic example.

[Rafale]

31. Good point, friend.

Thanks.