lhslep134;1432037 wrote:NO IT DIDN'T. It took away the state's power to infringe on traditionally lawful purposes! The state can still restrict gun ownership/usage in a non-traditionally protected forum.

I agree with that and said as much...maybe what I should have said is that the Court set a ceiling on the ability for states and localities to determine what the lawful purposes of gun ownership are. For example, the state of New York cannot say that the lawful purpose of gun ownership is only as part of a well regulated militia.

Surely you see how that is definitely different than saying that the Court allows an individual private right to bear arms for "any lawful purpose" the reason being because state legislatures determine what is "lawful"

If the Ohio Assembly passed a law reading: "In the event that the Browns win the Super Bowl, it is hereby permitted that people who keep and bear firearms n this state may fire them into the sky for 5 hours after the victory" the state of Ohio has said that firing the gun into the sky after the browns win is a lawful purpose for keeping and bearing a firearm.

You are suggesting that because the state government determines what a "lawful purpose is" that this type of statute would be protected under Heller if you agree that there is no distinction between "any lawful purpose" and "traditionally lawful purpose".

If someone could show standing in an attempt to get that law thrown out...its defender would not succeed in arguing that he/she can keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of firing it into the sky after the Browns win because is protected under Heller because Heller protects the right to bear arms for "any lawful purpose"

I refuse to acknowledge your blatantly and obviously pathetic attempt to spin the argument in your favor. You're clearly grasping at straws so it's not worth my time to even consider what you proffer.

Manhattan Buckeye;1432034 wrote:"Suppose a Kink Shop in Vegas opens a service where they offer to penetrate women with loaded guns. It's a private contract between a business and a woman minding their own affairs. The City specifically grants permission saying it is lawful and grant him a business license. The state intervenes and passes a statute saying that "Loaded Gun Female Penetration Kink Shops" are prohibited. The Shop owner sues under Hellersaying he was acting with the blessing of the City within a lawful purpose. Does the state statute get thrown out under Heller because he was using his right to bear arms for some lawful purpose out of any possible lawful purposes??? Not a chance, it'd have to be a new holding expanding on Heller because of its explicit appeal to traditional lawful purposes."


Insert the word "gun" with any other device. You still aren't refuting QCB's comment.

Not the best hypo on my part. Was trying to suggest the state intervened for non-preemption reasons but I did not succeed.

lhslep134;1432047 wrote:I refuse to acknowledge your blatantly and obviously pathetic attempt to spin the argument in your favor. You're clearly grasping at straws so it's not worth my time to even consider what you proffer.

Lhslep, you tried to suggest that because in our constitutional system, legislatures make laws, "traditional lawful purposes" could be encapsulated as the same thing as "any lawful purpose." That is simply not the case as the Browns hypotheticial demonstrates.

If what Scalia wrote in Heller really meant "any lawful purpose' as you suggest, why does it not follow that a state blessing the firing of bullets into the air by people who keep and bear arms is protected when it is clearly lawful?

believer;1431682 wrote: Hey Footie...Guess we need to get out of Chechnya and stop killing their children right? :rolleyes:

How about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Boston.com News ‏@BostonDotCom16m
Report: Bombing suspects motivated by US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/04/report_bombing.html … via @BostonDotCom

Slate ‏@Slate24m
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as motivations for the #Boston bombing: http://slate.me/15Et6cM


Will McAvoy ‏@WillMcAvoyACN30m
Washington Post reporting the suspect in the Boston Bombing is claiming the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were motivation.

BoatShoes;1432056 wrote: That is simply not the case as the Browns hypotheticial demonstrates.

Let me make myself more clear: your hypo is illogical, idiotic, against public policy, and completely unrealistic

I'm not addressing any underlying logic you're trying to use until you give me a realistic hypo to work with.

lhslep134;1432047 wrote:I refuse to acknowledge your blatantly and obviously pathetic attempt to spin the argument in your favor. You're clearly grasping at straws so it's not worth my time to even consider what you proffer.

Or, think about this. Your whole point is that "any lawful purpose" really is the same as "traditional lawful purposes" because legislatures make laws...therefore Boatshoes you're a fail!

Imagine this scenario:

The Heller decision explicity says you don't have a right to bear arms for any and all reasons.

Arizona, in an attempt to show how much they support the 2nd Amendment passes a law saying..."Residents of Arizona who keep and bear arms may use them for any and all purposes"

Under the reasoning that you were using....any and all purposes are now "lawful purposes" for using a firearm because Arizona made it so. This is actually explicitly prohibited by the Heller decision!

So, "traditional lawful purpose" is not the same as "any lawful purpose" by virtue of the fact that state legislatures determine what is "lawful".

BoatShoes;1432068 wrote:
Arizona, in an attempt to show how much they support the 2nd Amendment passes a law saying..."Residents of Arizona who keep and bear arms may use them for any and all purposes"

That law wouldn't survive constitutional challenge. Too broad and there's federal pre-emption issues.

Keep em coming brosky.

lhslep134;1432060 wrote:Let me make myself more clear: your hypo is illogical, idiotic, against public policy, and completely unrealistic

I'm not addressing any underlying logic you're trying to use until you give me a realistic hypo to work with.

You have "UofArizona Law" on your avatar. They use far-fetched hypotheticals in law, jurisprudence and philosophy all of the time to get to the underlying logical problems of arguments. The hypothetical reveals the underlying logical problems of your argument.

Think of the hypo of doctor's stealing organs to argue against utilitarianism, etc.

In fact, I think the hypo I came up with might succeed in reducing your argument that Heller's holding means "any lawful purpose because legislatures determine what is lawful, etc. to absurdity.

That is the point. Clearly Heller would not protect a statute that blesses the firing of guns into the air and yet it would nevertheless be a lawful purpose which you say that Heller protects.

Complaining about the realism of a hypothetical is not a good strategy for passing the bar exam.

BoatShoes;1432079 wrote: Clearly Heller would not protect a statute that blesses the firing of guns into the air and yet it would nevertheless be a lawful purpose which you say that Heller protects.

It wouldn't be a lawful purpose because that law wouldn't pass, for various reasons.

Law school hypotheticals still have a realistic basis. There aren't hypotheticals, like yours, that are so far out there that they're plainly absurd.

How many times are you trying to be wrong today?!

Don't bother answering my last question, I'm done replying to you. Your absurdity is just too much, and you're trying way too hard to argue a meaningless point.

lhslep134;1432080 wrote:It wouldn't be a lawful purpose because that law wouldn't pass, for various reasons.

Law school hypotheticals still have a realistic basis. There aren't hypotheticals, like yours, that are so far out there that they're plainly absurd.

How many times are you trying to be wrong today?!

Torts professors always get wacky with causation. One of the most famous and discussed articles in moral philosophy involves a hypothetical world famous violinist being hooked up to a person's kidneys.

You are dodging the conclusion that you should be making...

FatHobbit;1431932 wrote:So it's your opinion.

An opinion backed by context/intent and the actual wording of the clause. Your opinion has absolutely no such basis, completely imagined. But as is frequently the case, if we imagine something long enough it becomes a fact.

A politicized Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Shocking.

gut;1432103 wrote:An opinion backed by context/intent and the actual wording of the clause.

Please see my earlier post about clauses and grammar. Your context/intent is one sentence. I don't even care that it's from wikipedia, but even if we accept that as fact you can hardly "prove" the founding fathers meant for the militia and not the people to have firearms.

gut;1432103 wrote:Your opinion has absolutely no such basis, completely imagined. But as is frequently the case, if we imagine something long enough it becomes a fact.

A politicized Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Shocking.

Even if you disagree with the supreme court decision, the wording of the ammendment is not 100% clear. I do not believe that the founding fathers at that time under those conditions would have supported disarming citizens.

FatHobbit;1432121 wrote:Please see my earlier post about clauses and grammar. Your context/intent is one sentence. I don't even care that it's from wikipedia, but even if we accept that as fact you can hardly "prove" the founding fathers meant for the militia and not the people to have firearms.

Even if you disagree with the supreme court decision, the wording of the ammendment is not 100% clear. I do not believe that the founding fathers at that time under those conditions would have supported disarming citizens.

There is a clear and unambiguous factual reading of the 2nd amendment...and then there is your opinion, your inference, - based on no historical context - that the 2nd amendment gives non-militia the right to bear arms.

My opinion is that your opinion the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms is baseless.

gut;1432129 wrote:There is a clear and unambiguous factual reading of the 2nd amendment...and then there is your opinion, your inference, - based on no historical context - that the 2nd amendment gives non-militia the right to bear arms.

My opinion is that your opinion the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms is baseless.

If that were the case, King Obama would have already confiscated our guns.

WebFire;1432142 wrote:If that were the case, King Obama would have already confiscated our guns.

What law would give him the power to do so? They can't get a simple background check passed.

gut;1432166 wrote:What law would give him the power to do so? They can't get a simple background check passed.

Because the 2nd amendment wouldn't protect non-military people owning guns.

WebFire;1432170 wrote:Because the 2nd amendment wouldn't protect non-military people owning guns.

Actually has nothing to do with it. There is no law making gun ownership illegal that Obama could apply, and I don't think even Obama could stretch executive order on that one.

If they could ever get the votes to make ownership illegal, THEN the law could face constitutional challenge. It already has on the state level (I think), and this SC struck it down but a future SC could decide differently, especially if its political make-up changes.

The whole debate is really quite stupid. Guns are here to stay, and even the task of confiscating the guns isn't really practical or feasible. Nor is the 2nd Amendment solely the key to the debate - I think property rights and other arguments are more compelling, especially today.

gut;1432190 wrote:Actually has nothing to do with it. There is no law making gun ownership illegal that Obama could apply, and I don't think even Obama could stretch executive order on that one.

If they could ever get the votes to make ownership illegal, THEN the law could face constitutional challenge. It already has on the state level (I think), and this SC struck it down but a future SC could decide differently, especially if its political make-up changes.

The whole debate is really quite stupid. Guns are here to stay, and even the task of confiscating the guns isn't really practical or feasible. Nor is the 2nd Amendment solely the key to the debate - I think property rights and other arguments are more compelling, especially today.

Then why are you arguing about it? You act like you are against the 2nd and don't want guns. Then say this? I'm confused as to what your stance is.

WebFire;1432197 wrote:You act like you are against the 2nd and don't want guns.

That's your mistake for assuming the fact that I don't find the 2nd Amendment arguments compelling means I oppose gun ownership.

WebFire;1432058 wrote:How about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Boston.com News ‏@BostonDotCom16m
Report: Bombing suspects motivated by US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/04/report_bombing.html … via @BostonDotCom

Slate ‏@Slate24m
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as motivations for the #Boston bombing: http://slate.me/15Et6cM


Will McAvoy ‏@WillMcAvoyACN30m
Washington Post reporting the suspect in the Boston Bombing is claiming the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were motivation.

Not really shocking, but the EEEEEVIILLL Neo cons as believer says will not accept that as an excuse. It is obviously because they hate freedom and reality television.

gut;1432202 wrote:That's your mistake for assuming the fact that I don't find the 2nd Amendment arguments compelling means I oppose gun ownership.

What else what I assume from your arguments? I can only assume from what you tell us. I just wonder why you are arguing about it?

pmoney25;1432221 wrote:Not really shocking, but the EEEEEVIILLL Neo cons as believer says will not accept that as an excuse. It is obviously because they hate freedom and reality television.

He still strikes me much more as simply a sociopath that sought a cause, a radical looking for validation (as opposed to being recruited and radicalized). If it wasn't militant Islam, it would have been something else.

WebFire;1432226 wrote:What else what I assume from your arguments? I can only assume from what you tell us. I just wonder why you are arguing about it?

Because the arguments interest me? I never said I opposed gun ownership, I said the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee that right. You equated that with being against guns. You made a bad assumption.