There are laws and executive orders passed to give further guidance for the US. Some think they don't go far enough and others will vary their preferences on the spectrum of the states intrusion upon their lives. Amendents have been ratified to add or subtract from the constitution. There must be great consideration and time taken to see the clear answer in its final laws... To conquer a tyranny, then the people must have a means to enforce its conviction wether externally or internally...
John, there are still people trottin' around in Horse drawn Wagons here in the America John. Trust Me John, things are no different now than it was 200 years ago or 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago. It is written as in the days of Noah so shall it be in these days. Ready or not here I AM EL O EL 😃
here is were we differ sir we have the right to do what we want but if we do wrong we must pay the price that that's what is gone there is no bite left in the law . you do something wrong pay the price don't cry about how your mother was an druggy an how you were misconceived as i think all mas dogs should be put down and that goes for two legged ones . what makes man separate from the animals is we have a choice from right and wrong and the ones that don't have no right to exist the most renewable commodity we have on the face of this earth is people and we are not going to run out any time soon and the sooner mother nature gets rid of about half of us the better off the world will be you know the funny thing is only man pretends to care about man . and if you think try to ban firearms is going to stop any thing your wrong with all the cnc machines and 3d printers in home shops the genie is out of the bottle and after all its just a tool it can be used for good or bad and that's up to the person using it for after all when a person has no choice they are not human . so you keep your radios and i will keep what i have what ever that may be
John, I agree with your views. The Constitution IS outdated. Since Trump began his reign of terror, our country has exponentially polarized either far left or far right with not much in the middle. This country has lost sight of its people. I appreciate your videos. Stay strong!
Your reasonings in regard to American Law are so amateurish and naive, that I have to say that I pity you. Nearly every sentence that you utter is demonstrative of argumentative flaw. However, heck you are overwhelmed with your inadequate reasons and conclusions, so I say you should probably continue. Humor, after all, is worth something. You refer to the Constitution as a 232 year old document. This line of reasoning is representative of the common logical fallacy designated Argumentum Ad Novitatem. You failed to cite any legal precedent which substantiates your claims. You ask a series of questions, but you are unaware that questions are not a proof criterion in law, nor in any other knowledge discipline. You did end however with the statement; "...they know what they have done, and so do we." For the record, in any court of law, your claim about what other people "know" or "do not know" would be discredited by a judge. Moreover, you referred to yourself as "we". We is a plurality of persons, and your attempt to make yourself appear swollen up into a vast multitude of like thinkers, is not logically coherent nor factually relevant. Your Hidden Premise, would be something like the claim: "We are right, because we feel that we are right." That my friend, would never pass standard as a legal criterion. Oh, and back to your first statement: "The Supreme Court has stirred up a lot of controversy and demonstrations." My friend, the operations in a court of law, in case you did not understand the subject, are by their very character, "adversarial". The more logical conclusion is that The Supreme Court addresses controversies and makes determinations based upon the Law of the Land, which is the Constitution and its Amendments.
Hi Bruce, The purpose of my video is to question the survival of the second amendment. It's interesting that in your response you say nothing in defense of it. Can you answer two simple questions for me? (#1) Do you deny the reason for drafting the second amendment in the first place? (#2) Do you believe that this reason is alive and well today? These two questions make my whole case. Do I really need a legal precedent to substantiate my claims? Where in the constitution do you find any reference to the modern issues I mention? The constitution is not the Holy Grail. Where do you think the "Law of the land" comes from? Divine inspiration? No. It is the embodiment of social mores, which change dramatically over time. For example, Two hundred years ago women had no rights, legal or moral. A woman dare not even show her ankles in public. This is the world the constitution comes from. I'm sorry, but your paralegal arguments conveniently avoid the main issue: the second amendment. I will admit that the first seven articles of the constitution did provide a good road-map for successful government, that is until the actions of Donald Trump challenged all of them. Favoring an update of the constitution is not anti American it is pro American.
@@squarewave2 "These two questions make my whole case."-----squarewave2 (a) There is no such thing in Argumenation Theory as questions making a case. (b) Biological organisms can be "alive and well". Reasons are not biological organisms.(See Mixed Metaphor) (c) "Do I really need a legal precedent to substantiate my claims?""-----squarewave2 Here again, you repeat the erroneous assumption that interrogatives have value as proof criteria. There are 7 Interrogatives in your case, and there is no such thing as an Interrogative making a "case". An Interrogative can generate a proposition, but not a "case".. (d) More eggregiously still, you presume to discuss American Law, and inquire absurdly: "Do I really need a legal precedent to substantiate my claims."------squarewave2 I am not proposing that it is necessary that I substantiate your claims. The Principle of the Burden of Proof applies, and if you are unaware of this principle you can proceed with no knowlege whatsoever of American Law. (e) "Where in the constitution do you find any reference to the modern issues I mention?" You are repeating the logical fallacy titled Argumentum Ad Novitatem. (f) "A woman dare not even show her ankles in public. This is the world the constitution comes from."-----squarewave2 The declarative about a "woman" is demonstrative of the Fallacy of the Ipse Dixit. (g) "Favoring an update of the constitution is not anti American it is pro American."----squarewave2 Thus far, you have not even identified objectively "an update of the constitution". (h) Your reference to a favor as "not anti-American" or "pro Amerian" is specifically an example of the Fallacy of the Straw Man. Your challenger has made no suggestion of a "pro American" or a "not anti-American" standing point. You are entitled to make your own standing points my friend. but you are not entitled to formulate my standing points and then dismiss that information. Moreover, you can cite nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights which substantiates your assertion of either "not anti-Amerian" or "pro American".
@@YaxisX Hi Bruce, Your criticisms may be appropriate if I were preparing a brief or presenting a case in court. As they stand, they have no relationship whatsoever to my video. I am not trying a case in court or preparing a brief, just giving my personal views and the reasons for them. Again, I do not need any legal precedence to express my point of view. You don't approve of me saying "we". Do you remember a famous document that starts out, "We the people"? It's interesting that again you fail to defend the second amendment. Can't you answer my two questions? Apparently they have more significance than you give them credit for.
I had to ask myself what would motivate someone to spend time and energy writing lengthy criticisms of my video using legal terminology? Did I hit a nerve? I finally realized that it was someone very upset by my effective presentation of a viewpoint that conflicts with his own political beliefs. What other explanation could there be? Now I consider his criticisms to be a compliment showing that my video was effective and that it hit the nail on the head. Thank you, Bruce! Stay tuned, there is more to come!
Pity that the original video is no longer up. The comments from the conservatives having a meltdown were priceless.
There are laws and executive orders passed to give further guidance for the US. Some think they don't go far enough and others will vary their preferences on the spectrum of the states intrusion upon their lives. Amendents have been ratified to add or subtract from the constitution. There must be great consideration and time taken to see the clear answer in its final laws... To conquer a tyranny, then the people must have a means to enforce its conviction wether externally or internally...
John, there are still people trottin' around in Horse drawn Wagons here in the America John. Trust Me John, things are no different now than it was 200 years ago or 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago. It is written as in the days of Noah so shall it be in these days.
Ready or not here I AM EL O EL
😃
here is were we differ sir we have the right to do what we want but if we do wrong we must pay the price that that's what is gone there is no bite left in the law . you do something wrong pay the price don't cry about how your mother was an druggy an how you were misconceived as i think all mas dogs should be put down and that goes for two legged ones . what makes man separate from the animals is we have a choice from right and wrong and the ones that don't have no right to exist the most renewable commodity we have on the face of this earth is people and we are not going to run out any time soon and the sooner mother nature gets rid of about half of us the better off the world will be you know the funny thing is only man pretends to care about man . and if you think try to ban firearms is going to stop any thing your wrong with all the cnc machines and 3d printers in home shops the genie is out of the bottle and after all its just a tool it can be used for good or bad and that's up to the person using it for after all when a person has no choice they are not human . so you keep your radios and i will keep what i have what ever that may be
John, I agree with your views. The Constitution IS outdated. Since Trump began his reign of terror, our country has exponentially polarized either far left or far right with not much in the middle. This country has lost sight of its people. I appreciate your videos. Stay strong!
interesting. they could. be told about Wilson. how about FDR. think about that
@@ccoates1064 I have no idea what you are saying.
I just found your Channel. Bye Bye.
Your reasonings in regard to American Law are so amateurish and naive, that I have to say that I pity you. Nearly every sentence that you utter is demonstrative of argumentative flaw. However, heck you are overwhelmed with your inadequate reasons and conclusions, so I say you should probably continue. Humor, after all, is worth something.
You refer to the Constitution as a 232 year old document. This line of reasoning is representative of the common logical fallacy designated Argumentum Ad Novitatem.
You failed to cite any legal precedent which substantiates your claims.
You ask a series of questions, but you are unaware that questions are not a proof criterion in law, nor in any other knowledge discipline.
You did end however with the statement; "...they know what they have done, and so do we." For the record, in any court of law, your claim about what other people "know" or "do not know" would be discredited by a judge. Moreover, you referred to yourself as "we". We is a plurality of persons, and your attempt to make yourself appear swollen up into a vast multitude of like thinkers, is not logically coherent nor factually relevant.
Your Hidden Premise, would be something like the claim: "We are right, because we feel that we are right." That my friend, would never pass standard as a legal criterion.
Oh, and back to your first statement: "The Supreme Court has stirred up a lot of controversy and demonstrations." My friend, the operations in a court of law, in case you did not understand the subject, are by their very character, "adversarial". The more logical conclusion is that The Supreme Court addresses controversies and makes determinations based upon the Law of the Land, which is the Constitution and its Amendments.
Hi Bruce,
The purpose of my video is to question the survival of the second amendment. It's interesting that in your response you say nothing in defense of it. Can you answer two simple questions for me? (#1) Do you deny the reason for drafting the second amendment in the first place? (#2) Do you believe that this reason is alive and well today? These two questions make my whole case. Do I really need a legal precedent to substantiate my claims? Where in the constitution do you find any reference to the modern issues I mention? The constitution is not the Holy Grail. Where do you think the "Law of the land" comes from? Divine inspiration? No. It is the embodiment of social mores, which change dramatically over time. For example, Two hundred years ago women had no rights, legal or moral. A woman dare not even show her ankles in public. This is the world the constitution comes from. I'm sorry, but your paralegal arguments conveniently avoid the main issue: the second amendment. I will admit that the first seven articles of the constitution did provide a good road-map for successful government, that is until the actions of Donald Trump challenged all of them. Favoring an update of the constitution is not anti American it is pro American.
@@squarewave2 "These two questions make my whole case."-----squarewave2
(a) There is no such thing in Argumenation Theory as questions making a case.
(b) Biological organisms can be "alive and well". Reasons are not biological organisms.(See Mixed Metaphor)
(c) "Do I really need a legal precedent to substantiate my claims?""-----squarewave2
Here again, you repeat the erroneous assumption that interrogatives have value as proof criteria. There are 7 Interrogatives in your case, and there is no such thing as an Interrogative making a "case". An Interrogative can generate a proposition, but not a "case"..
(d) More eggregiously still, you presume to discuss American Law, and inquire absurdly:
"Do I really need a legal precedent to substantiate my claims."------squarewave2
I am not proposing that it is necessary that I substantiate your claims. The Principle of the Burden of Proof applies, and if you are unaware of this principle you can proceed with no knowlege whatsoever of American Law.
(e) "Where in the constitution do you find any reference to the modern issues I mention?"
You are repeating the logical fallacy titled Argumentum Ad Novitatem.
(f) "A woman dare not even show her ankles in public. This is the world the constitution comes from."-----squarewave2 The declarative about a "woman" is demonstrative of the Fallacy of the Ipse Dixit.
(g) "Favoring an update of the constitution is not anti American it is pro American."----squarewave2
Thus far, you have not even identified objectively "an update of the constitution".
(h) Your reference to a favor as "not anti-American" or "pro Amerian" is specifically an example of the Fallacy of the Straw Man. Your challenger has made no suggestion of a "pro American" or a "not anti-American" standing point. You are entitled to make your own standing points my friend. but you are not entitled to formulate my standing points and then dismiss that information. Moreover, you can cite nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights which substantiates your assertion of either "not anti-Amerian" or "pro American".
@@YaxisX Hi Bruce,
Your criticisms may be appropriate if I were preparing a brief or presenting a case in court. As they stand, they have no relationship whatsoever to my video. I am not trying a case in court or preparing a brief, just giving my personal views and the reasons for them. Again, I do not need any legal precedence to express my point of view. You don't approve of me saying "we". Do you remember a famous document that starts out, "We the people"? It's interesting that again you fail to defend the second amendment. Can't you answer my two questions? Apparently they have more significance than you give them credit for.
I had to ask myself what would motivate someone to spend time and energy writing lengthy criticisms of my video using legal terminology? Did I hit a nerve? I finally realized that it was someone very upset by my effective presentation of a viewpoint that conflicts with his own political beliefs. What other explanation could there be? Now I consider his criticisms to be a compliment showing that my video was effective and that it hit the nail on the head. Thank you, Bruce! Stay tuned, there is more to come!
You should have stayed in your lane