I was not saying the Bruen test had to be applied to everything, I was trying to make the point that the Buren test is a methodology they used but not something that has to be used for everything.

Listen to the podcast I posted, they go into it a lot better than I can explain.

So you are making the case that spouse abuse shouldn't be illegal then because there was no historical analogies?

 

**Bruen, not Buren

That's not what you said.  Are you really that dishonest?

Re-read your posts.  I don't need to listen to someone else's words when the ones you posted are right here.

YOU tried to argue against Bruen's test being used by applying it to an unrelated law.  Nobody else did that. 

Now that you see how stupid that was, you're trying to say, "But, someone on a podcast argued something something that was better than how i can put it."

What you are using is a false analogy, and you very well know it.  You do this all the time.

False Analogy, also called Faulty Analogy, is an informal logical fallacy
in inductive reasoning. It’s a part of Generalizations Fallacies group.
It usually occurs when someone applies or assumes that if two things
or events have similarities in one or more respects, they are similar in
other properties too. Still, the things or events are substantially different,
and those similarities can not be extrapolated to other properties.

Just because both gun laws and domestic abuse laws are statutes doesn't make them similar at all.  Nothing in the Constitution mentions domestic abuse -- prove me wrong.

You are also using a typical straw man argument:

Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy
that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their
opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat. As such, it is commonplace
in a wide variety of situations, such as political debates, journalism, and
debates on any controversial topics.

Show me where anyone other than you said, "...spouse abuse shouldn't be illegal then because there was no historical analogies."

If you can't debate honestly, you need to quit.  There's no law that says you have to comment on every post just because you can.

**Bruen, not Buren

I know, it was a typo.

That's not what you said.  Are you really that dishonest?
Re-read your posts.  I don't need to listen to someone else's words when the ones you posted are right here.
YOU tried to argue against Bruen's test being used by applying it to an unrelated law.  Nobody else did that. 
Now that you see how stupid that was, you're trying to say, "But, someone on a podcast argued something something that was better than how i can put it."
What you are using is a false analogy, and you very well know it.  You do this all the time.

Wrong. I was illustrating how Bruen is not a hardfast rule rather a methodology. I was showing how looking at it as a hardfast rule would result in ridiculous rulings.

Just because both gun laws and domestic abuse laws are statutes doesn't make them similar at all.  Nothing in the Constitution mentions domestic abuse -- prove me wrong.

Fair point, but I was not trying to equate them.

You are also using a typical straw man argument:
Show me where anyone other than you said, "...spouse abuse shouldn't be illegal then because there was no historical analogies."

If you can't debate honestly, you need to quit.  There's no law that says you have to comment on every post just because you can.

Focus!
I didn't say that anyone here claimed this to be the case. It was an example brought up in discussion by attorneys discussing the Rahimi case. Listen to the podcast.

A useless example to make himself sound right in his head. I like oreo cookies with milk and not with orange juice. #relevant

Listen to the podcast.

I know, it was a typo.

Wrong. I was illustrating how Bruen is not a hardfast rule rather a methodology. I was showing how looking at it as a hardfast rule would result in ridiculous rulings.


Fair point, but I was not trying to equate them.



Focus!
I didn't say that anyone here claimed this to be the case. It was an example brought up in discussion by attorneys discussing the Rahimi case.

Listen to the podcast.

NO.

Listen to the podcast.

I have my own sources and said sources actual help HI lawsuits. So, no.

NO.

Then don't complain

I have my own sources and said sources actual help HI lawsuits. So, no.

Then don't make such a big deal if you aren't even willing to consider their explanation. I listened to your Washington gun lawyer guy.

I'd be happy to listen to your sources who help our lawsuits too.

Then don't complain

You're trying to promote that podcast as if you agree with the ideas, but you can't articulate what those arguments are -- so you want to let the podcast do it for you.

Lazy!

You could have just posted the link and not argued with everything we post.

Then don't complain

Why not?

Then don't make such a big deal if you aren't even willing to consider their explanation. I listened to your Washington gun lawyer guy.

I'd be happy to listen to your sources who help our lawsuits too.

Did I force you to listen to any of my sources? It's up to you if you want a better source to get information from, even though you will still move goal post and refuse to admit being wrong. Since you have no street credit, I won't spend any or much time at all on your sources as they are bad ones most of the time.  Compared to someone else who has shown to post better stuff, I would give it a review.  It's like if I hear CNN reporting on something, it's probably BS.

Did I force you to listen to any of my sources? It's up to you if you want a better source to get information from, even though you will still move goal post and refuse to admit being wrong. Since you have no street credit, I won't spend any or much time at all on your sources as they are bad ones most of the time.  Compared to someone else who has shown to post better stuff, I would give it a review.  It's like if I hear CNN reporting on something, it's probably BS.

Just pointing out your double standard. It's up to you if you want a better source to get information from, even though you will still move goal post and refuse to admit being wrong.

Nice circular reasoning there Mr. street cred.

Just pointing out your double standard. It's up to you if you want a better source to get information from, even though you will still move goal post and refuse to admit being wrong.

Nice circular reasoning there Mr. street cred.

Wrong.