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:

Judges consider all sorts of things when making decisions. I don't necessarily support using foreign laws and customs as the basis for such decisions, but that's just my opinion.

 

You implied there were cases when a judge relied on "public opinion polls" to render a legal decision ... I asked you for one, and you haven't produced it.

 

There was never an insult there, either ... you just assumed there was, I suppose. If there was one, it would be crystal clear.

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?

 

Yes, and since the issuance birth certificates would make it easier for the government to confiscate babies, maybe we should do away with birth certificates.

Yes, and since the issuance birth certificates would make it easier for the government to confiscate babies, maybe we should do away with birth certificates.

 

Why would the government confiscate babies?

Yes, and since the issuance birth certificates would make it easier for the government to confiscate babies, maybe we should do away with birth certificates.

Another bad analogy? You are batting 1.000 today! :lol:

 

The difference is that the confiscation of guns in which guns have been confiscated have seen an increase in gun control laws prior to their ultimate confiscation. If there is no registration, then the government would be required to conduct house to house searches to confiscate guns. Are you arguing that large scale registration does not make confiscation easier, and therefor more likely?

Why would the government confiscate babies?

Good point. There is no need to confiscate that which can be aborted with government funds.

Judges consider all sorts of things when making decisions. I don't necessarily support using foreign laws and customs as the basis for such decisions, but that's just my opinion.

 

You implied there were cases when a judge relied on "public opinion polls" to render a legal decision ... I asked you for one, and you haven't produced it.

 

There was never an insult there, either ... you just assumed there was, I suppose. If there was one, it would be crystal clear.

Not only did the written majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons refer to world opinion as a factor, Justice Ginsburg also publicly defended the reference to world opinion. I provided a link both to the majority opinion and to an article detailing Justice Ginsburg's defense of the reference to public opinion.

 

If you want to continue arguing that public opinion was not a factor in Roper v. Simmons, then go right ahead - but do so without me. The facts are clear and I have documented them as well as they can be documented. Whether you want to acknowledge those facts is up to you.

 

Although the Supreme Court's willingness to consider public opinion in its decisions is relevant to the thread topic, it is only tangentially related, so this is my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the last word on this subject before somebody drags out the dead horse smilie. :lol:

Not only did the written majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons refer to world opinion as a factor, Justice Ginsburg also publicly defended the reference to world opinion. I provided a link both to the majority opinion and to an article detailing Justice Ginsburg's defense of the reference to public opinion.

 

If you want to continue arguing that public opinion was not a factor in Roper v. Simmons, then go right ahead - but do so without me. The facts are clear and I have documented them as well as they can be documented. Whether you want to acknowledge those facts is up to you.

I haven't argued that it "was not a factor" in the decision ... now you're mischaracterizing my position.

 

I simply don't see it as nearly important of a factor as you seem to be doing.

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.

If you can't understand the difference between a Constitutional right and a privilege there's no sense talking to you about it.

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.

Please give me proof that it will not. We've seen it elsewhere.

Another bad analogy? You are batting 1.000 today! :lol:

 

The difference is that the confiscation of guns in which guns have been confiscated have seen an increase in gun control laws prior to their ultimate confiscation. If there is no registration, then the government would be required to conduct house to house searches to confiscate guns. Are you arguing that large scale registration does not make confiscation easier, and therefor more likely?

Make that another horrible analogy. :creepy:

By the way, lost in this debate is the fact that this bill will also require the release of your mental health records. Absurd!

By the way, lost in this debate is the fact that this bill will also require the release of your mental health records. Absurd!

 

You're not worried RTS are you? :lol:

 

J/K and hoping to bring levity to the discussion.

You're not worried RTS are you? :lol:

 

J/K and hoping to bring levity to the discussion.

 

Good luck with that!

By the way, lost in this debate is the fact that this bill will also require the release of your mental health records. Absurd!

Actually lost in these six pages is a GOOD reason from anyone why this bill makes sense.

 

Again I will ask someone to not just say they support the bill or think it's logical but why you think it makes sense and why it is a good idea. Please someone give a reason.

You're not worried RTS are you? :lol:

 

J/K and hoping to bring levity to the discussion.

Well yeah!!! :lol: