It is just very unfortunate that the misuse of firearms has be used by the media and many law makers to fuel the fire and cover up the facts.They will stop at nothing to further their agenda,

 

If a rockstar or a movie star operates a vehicle under the influence of drugs or is stopped while drinking they get a slap on the wrist. BOTH are the number one death related causes in the U S !! WHY DON"T THEY GO AFTER THIS PROBLEM as fierce as they do gun control ??:confused:

It is just very unfortunate that the misuse of firearms has be used by the media and many law makers to fuel the fire and cover up the facts.They will stop at nothing to further their agenda,

 

If a rockstar or a movie star operates a vehicle under the influence of drugs or is stopped while drinking they get a slap on the wrist. BOTH are the number one death related causes in the U S !! WHY DON"T THEY GO AFTER THIS PROBLEM as fierce as they do gun control ??:confused:

 

 

For the record, I agree with you.

 

Maybe there should be more rigorous prosecution of people who are careless with guns.

Horrible analogy. :creepy:

Guns are being regulated and taxed to death, as Hoot Gibson and I have both explained, it's not as hard to do as you try to make it sound.

 

 

If it's a horrible analogy, it is because automobiles are much more regulated than guns. Automakers have to meet safety standards, fuel economy standards, exhaust emissions standards. Take a look at the list of safety standards here. At some point, they will probably also have to meet recyclability standards. In order to drive your car on public roads, it must be registered (renewed every year) and usage taxes must be paid (again, every year). There is a record of title for every legally-registered vehicle on the road and any title transfer must be recorded. Is there a similar registration standard for gun ownership? Is there a similar annual tax on guns in private ownership? You, as the operator of a motor vehicle must take a written test and a driving test to receive your license (which includes a photograph and which must be renewed periodically). Is there a even a basic competency evaluation for gun ownership?

 

The assertion that more regulation will lead to confiscation (with associated Constitutionality implications) is hogwash.

Edited January 16, 200917 yr by H

For the record, I agree with you.

 

Maybe there should be more rigorous prosecution of people who are careless with guns.

 

I have no problem with that ! Hey , that's two things we agree on !

 

I do feel that guns should be responsibly cared for. In my opinion , anytime a child gets hold of a gun, there has to be a negligent adult somewhere. I'm sure there could be circumstances in a case or two, but generally , someone messed up somewhere.

If it's a horrible analogy, it is because automobiles are much more regulated than guns. Automakers have to meet safety standards, fuel economy standards, exhaust emissions standards. Take a look at the list of safety standards here. At some point, they will probably also have to meet recyclability standards. In order to drive your car on public roads, it must be registered (renewed every year) and usage taxes must be paid (again, every year). There is a record of title for every legally-registered vehicle on the road and any title transfer must be recorded. Is there a similar registration standard for gun ownership? Is there a similar annual tax on guns in private ownership? You, as the operator must take a written test and a driving test to receive your license (which includes a photograph and which must be renewed periodically). Is there a even a basic competency evaluation for gun ownership?

 

The assertion that more regulation will lead to confiscation (with associated Constitutionality implications) is hogwash.

It is a horrible analogy because there is no constitutional right to drive an automobile on public highways. Driving is a privilege not a right. The federal government could ban all driving tomorrow on federally maintained highways and there would be no constitutional basis for any of us objecting.

Certainly not to the same extent. Conservatives are much more inclined to push for legislation and ballot initiatives to address their concerns as opposed to seeking a judge willing to impose the will of the minority upon the majority. Of course, it helps that there are far more conservatives in this nation than liberals.

 

Is that a really accurate statement?

 

I mean if you go by popular election of the president since 1976 the outcomes show:

 

1976 Carter

1980 Reagan

1984 Reagan

1988 Bush

1992 Clinton

1996 Clinton

2000 Gore

2004 Bush

2008 Obama

 

 

Based on the popular vote of those elections you could say the Conservatives won four of the votes and the Moderate/Liberals five.

 

Are there that many more conservatives then than liberals in the US? Maybe if we place Moderates in an entirely different group but if so what does that really look like in the model of voting population?

It is a horrible analogy because there is no constitutional right to drive an automobile on public highways. Driving is a privilege not a right. The federal government could ban all driving tomorrow on federally maintained highways and there would be no constitutional basis for any of us objecting.

 

 

But, please explain to me, the logical basis for the claim that more stringent regulation of firearms will necessarily lead to confiscation. The reality is that such imflammatory rhetoric is nothing more than a tactic to stir up people who apparently don't understand the concept of Constitutionality.

 

Are you implying that if driving an automobile was a basic right enumerated in the Constitution, cars would not have to meet crashworthiness standards, exhaust emissions standards, and would not require registration? Preposterous.

If it's a horrible analogy, it is because automobiles are much more regulated than guns. Automakers have to meet safety standards, fuel economy standards, exhaust emissions standards. Take a look at the list of safety standards here. At some point, they will probably also have to meet recyclability standards. In order to drive your car on public roads, it must be registered (renewed every year) and usage taxes must be paid (again, every year). There is a record of title for every legally-registered vehicle on the road and any title transfer must be recorded. Is there a similar registration standard for gun ownership? Is there a similar annual tax on guns in private ownership? You, as the operator of a motor vehicle must take a written test and a driving test to receive your license (which includes a photograph and which must be renewed periodically). Is there a even a basic competency evaluation for gun ownership?

 

The assertion that more regulation will lead to confiscation (with associated Constitutionality implications) is hogwash.[/QUOTE]

You do realise that Hillary was in charge of pushing for gun bans while Bill was in office . Why did she meet with the lady from Australia that got their gun confication passed ? Several times.

Oh, so it's OK as long as they're advocating your point of view.

 

Do you know of a case where a judge relied on "public opinion polls" to render a decision? Or is that just another right-wing talking point?

How about a post devoid of unprovoked personal insults? I don't regurgitate anybody's talking points. Never have. Never will.

 

Here is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defending liberals' reliance on foreign court decisions and the consideration of world public opinion. If you follow the Supreme Court much, then you must know that this has been a key difference between the liberals and conservatives on the court.

Justice Ginsburg Backs Value of Foreign Law

 

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT

Published: April 2, 2005

 

ASHINGTON, April 1 - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.

 

After a strongly worded dissent in a juvenile death penalty case from Justice Antonin Scalia last month that accused the court of putting too much faith in international opinion, Justice Ginsberg said the United States system should, if anything, consider international law more often.

 

"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary," she said in a speech to several hundred lawyers and scholars here Friday.

 

She cited several instances when the logic of foreign courts had been applied to help untangle legal questions domestically, and of legislatures and courts abroad adopting United States law.

 

Fears about relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey," Justice Ginsburg told members of the American Society of International Law. [emphasis added]

But, please explain to me, the logical basis for the claim that more stringent regulation of firearms will necessarily lead to confiscation. The reality is that such imflammatory rhetoric is nothing more than a tactic to stir up people who apparently don't understand the concept of Constitutionality.

I have not made that claim, so I will not defend it. However, gun registration would make confiscation much easier, if the decision is ever made to confiscate firearms. Surely, you see the logic in that conclusion, don't you?

 

As I have explained in multiple posts above, I believe that liberals will use ever more stringent regulation to make legal gun ownership increasingly burdensome and expensive. The net effect will not be much different than confiscation if liberals are successful in their efforts.

How about a post devoid of unprovoked personal insults? I don't regurgitate anybody's talking points. Never have. Never will.

 

Here is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defending liberals' reliance on foreign court decisions and the consideration of world public opinion. If you follow the Supreme Court much, then you must know that this has been a key difference between the liberals and conservatives on the court.

Where was the personal insult?

 

I didn't dispute the foreign court argument ... but I questioned whether you knew of a case where a judge made a ruling based on public opinion polls. You haven't produced one.

Where was the personal insult?

 

I didn't dispute the foreign court argument ... but I questioned whether you knew of a case where a judge made a ruling based on public opinion polls. You haven't produced one.

Did you bother to read the NYT article to which I linked? Ginsburg was defending the concurring opinion in the case, in which reference was made to public opinion. (See the bold text in my post.)

 

Perhaps you are simply parsing words. Ginsburg cited world public opinion and polls are generally the way politicians such as her measure public opinion. If the word "poll" is what you are taking issue with, then I acknowledge that Ginsburg and her cohorts did not explicitly use the word "poll" in their written opinion. :lol:

 

From the majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons:

 

International Confirmation

The Court further noted that that the execution of juvenile offenders violated several international treaties, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and stated that the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty provides confirmation for the Court’s own conclusion that the death penalty is disproportional punishment for offenders under 18.

I believe that most reasonable people would interpret this as an example where public opinion was considered by liberals in a Supreme Court decision.

Did you bother to read the NYT article to which I linked? Ginsburg was defending the concurring opinion in the case, in which reference was made to public opinion. (See the bold text in my post.)

 

Perhaps you are simply parsing words. Ginsburg cited world public opinion and polls are generally the way politicians such as her measure public opinion. If the word "poll" is what you are taking issue with, then I acknowledge that Ginsburg and her cohorts did not explicitly use the word "poll" in their written opinion. :lol:

 

From the majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons:

 

I believe that most reasonable people would interpret this as an example where public opinion was considered by liberals in a Supreme Court decision.

There is a difference between "considering" public opinion and "relying" on it to render a decision. In the case you reference, there were other factors mentioned, too.

 

Again, where was the personal insult?

Hey I say go ahead and ban guns!

 

And since we've banned guns, I don't suppose Obama's Secret Service needs guns right? I mean after all... We've stopped all gun violence correct? While we're at it, lets ban Police officers guns. With no more guns on the streets who needs a gun when a taser can stop everything?

There is a difference between "considering" public opinion and "relying" on it to render a decision. In the case you reference, there were other factors mentioned, too.

 

Again, where was the personal insult?

Never mind. If you believe that a court that considers foreign court decisions and world opinion is somehow different than relying on any other fact, then nothing I can say is going to sway you.

 

Supreme Court cases that result in written opinions rarely rely on a single case or fact.

 

As for the insult, forget that too. I expect nothing else when you respond to my posts.:lol: