Treating Guns as cars

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/opinion/nicholas-kristof-our-blind-spot-about-guns.html?_r=0&referrer=

You can't complain that guns kill people, when that is the function of guns. And you can't let the government regulate the killing, because the government is the ultimate target. They are sure to attempt to regulate your ability to kill them out of existence.

This ability to oppose the government was written into the bill of rights intentionally.

"" Yet, instead, we built a system that protects us from ourselves. This saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year and is a model of what we should do with guns in America.""
Yes, yes it is all for the children, that is the dumb non government person.

"" Whenever I write about the need for sensible regulation of guns, some readers jeer: Cars kill people, too, so why not ban cars? Why are you so hypocritical as to try to take away guns from law-abiding people when you don't seize cars?""
First of all, progressives are working diligently to take away our cars, and second I haven't held anyone make that argument so it doesn't happen (here I am channeling our Progressive brothern, it doesn't need to make sense). The part about " take away guns from law-abiding people" remains unanswered.

"" One constraint, the argument goes, is the Second Amendment. Yet the paradox is that a bit more than a century ago, there was no universally recognized individual right to bear arms in the United States,""  I would characterize this is a little more than a constraint, the problem is that at that at that time the progressives didn't recognize the constitution as the ultimate law of the land. The requirement that anything is " universally recognized individual right " is a rhetorical way to deny any constraint on government.

"" Courts and editorial writers alike saw the carnage and agreed that something must be done. "" This to was not universally recognized, but the rules change when you have a desired outcome. Also, if the courts recognize a point of law, why would what editorial writes have standing in the matter.  Why not refer to the majority of Bloggers? we are people to!

But I do go on.  I have enough examples to put into question the reasoning ability of NICHOLAS KRISTOF.  This is sufficient to negate the "universally recognized" portion of his reputation.