>>Actually many people get along just fine without cars. If people would just move to urban centers then we can increase public transportation and do away with individual ownership of automobiles. Or perhaps we limit the size. Everyone may have a Smartcar but nothing larger, that way the disproportionate size of vehicles will not contribute to the deaths as a factor in auto accidents.
>
>Hmmm, sounds like john lennons' imagine. Ideological sound, but hopelessly impractical at this day and age.

I was being absurd . That you find it "ideological(sic) sound" tells me more about your inherent desire to control people to the point of telling them where and how to live. That's truly frightning.

>>The argument makes perfect logical sense. In fact, moreso because as I pointed out gun ownership is a Constitutional right whereas owning and operating a car is not. If you cannot see the difference then we agree, there is no discussion possible.
>
>Whether something is a constitutional right or not is totally irrelevant.

Now you're calling the Supreme Law of the Unites States irrelevant. What matters is not law but changing opinion through time. That's how dictators and monarchs operate. IWO exactly what our founders fought so hard to break away from.

>Some muslim countries may have constitutional rights, to have more than one wife, stone women, adultery, abuse children, murder non muslim, etc. Do you agree with them? You seem to think that those rights are cast in stone, static and absolute.

I apologize for any misunderstanding, when I mention the Constitution I meant the US one.

>Many of those rights stem from an entire different age and therefore are outdated. The right to drive a car already is embedded in other constitutional rights, like in 1st amendment (equal rights). Fixing those wrong rights is just exactly the point here !

The first amendment is not "equal rights". Perhaps you're thinking of the 14th which guarantees equal protection under the law. Of course, since you're advocating doing away with the Supreme Law of the land it's difficult to imagin how the 14th applies.
>
>I'm shocked again to see that somehow people throw up all kinds of silly and stupid argument just to live with the status quo, just to justify to do exact what you did the last time this happened: Absolutely nothing.

I'm never shocked to see the sactimonious cries for more restriction on liberty whenever a tragedy occurs. Whether it's the atriot Act or an assault weapons ban the cry of the ambulance chaser is always the same. Because a psychopath did something bad we must all pay with out liberty.