1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Mimosas or bloody Marys for Newt this morning? Or did he just get a case of The Old when typing this tweet?


     
  2. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    What rights have been removed? Women's sufferage ? Prohibition Repeal? Indentured servitude? Direct Sentatorial Elections?
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    He's talking about Prohibition.

    And it didn't take away a right.
     
  4. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Only one side is responsible for its actions (and it's non-actions), though.
     
  5. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Saint Sin is another dude who writes a lot of letters to the editor. How many do you write in a week, NC? Write about politics, or are you also outraged by how UAB sports are treated?
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    But there is no such right in the constitution.

    It's been amended to expand and/or guaranty rights, not limit them.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    So what?
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Let's say that the Bill of Rights granted every man a right to slug his wife in the face, once a year. Would you advocate repeal?

    You would be stripping citizens of a right.
     
  9. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member


    Removing the right to purchase combat firearms intended as man killers is not removing the second amendment. Neither would taking thirty and hundred round magazines off the market. Hell, there is precedent. Back in the 1920's it was legal for a citizen to buy Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles in full auto, weapons that were carried in virtually every infantry squad during WWII. Bank robbers loved them, it gave them a huge advantage over police and bank guards carrying .38 revolvers. They were made illegal for the general public and highly regulated, and are to this day.

    The only reason to carry an AR with a hundred round drum magazine is to kill a lot of people in a short time without having to reload. Sure, you can shoot a lot of rocks and trees fast with one, and it's fun... but they won't charge you while you reload a ten or fifteen round mag in an effort to take you down before you kill more people in a crowded theater.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
    Iron_chet and Inky_Wretch like this.
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I'm open to better wording. It's an example of the constitution being used to constrain the people, not the government, and it was a failure.
     
  11. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

    You have a talk-radio listener's grasp of constitutional law.
     
    heyabbott likes this.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Now do the 13th Amendment.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page