As for the cars vs guns analogy; when gun owners are required to be trained, licensed and insured against damages to persons and property caused by their guns, we might have a comparison. I would have less problem with people owning guns if guns were as regulated as cars are.
Oh, I agree there should be a requirement to be trained and licensed to own a gun...hadn't thought about the insurance part but it makes sense.
The only reason I used the cars analogy was for the comparative damage caused to society by each vs. society's tolerance for one over the other.
Abortion was touched upon lightly to illustrate how the constitution can be interpreted to extrapolate and apply rights not specifically outlined within the original frame work. If we can do that then we absolutely can re-interpret rights vaguely granted within the original framework in order to remove or greatly restrict them. And that is what frightens me.
Let's touch on another one real quick. The right to vote has not always been recognized for everyone. That was changed over time. Flash forward to today and look at the arguments for or against voter ID.
It is argued that requiring an ID to vote effectively disenfranchises a certain class of people. Much like a poll tax did.
If we are to compare apples to apples then it can be argued that requiring special training and licencing to exorcise your second amendment rights will disenfranchise a certain class of people.
For the purposes of this phase of the discussion I believe that discussing possible harm to others should not pertain.
Since comparing potential harm caused by our use of automobiles does not apply to this conversation then potential harm caused by guns cannot be considered as a rebuttal to equal access to our rights.
I said before and I'll say it again, I don't mind one bit if we go in and expand our rights
...I just don't think it's a great idea to start going in and removing them.