But it's ok to challenge the 1st ammendment in your first 4 days in office? Not sure I get your willful neglect of one ammendment over another.
I'm talking about Trump and his team fighting against the press. That is covered under the first ammendment. It's really simple. I find it deplorable.
Oh Jesus, stop getting emotional. Firstly, just in case you've been living under a rock...the press, and indeed the majority of the MSM, hasn't exactly been unbiased and fair in their reporting of Trump. This is common knowledge, even among most devout Liberals. The MSM have obscured facts, cherry-picked his speeches, made baseless assumptions about the meanings of his words, and flat-out lied at times. Again: this is common knowledge. Secondly, they aren't fighting them. The Trump administration is showing their disdain to CNN, and denying them access to the White House. That's not "fighting against the 1st Amendment", despite what you want to believe. When Trump gets around to shutting down peaceful protests and declaring martial law against anyone who marches in protest, then you can get back to me about violating the 1st Amendment. And when the press is ready to be impartial, factual, and unbiased, then they can come out of their time out. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
What would be the point? You'll find a way to rationalize it as not real. Cuz, guess what? They're trying it: Republican Lawmakers in Five States Propose Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest Oh, but that can't be true, can it? Because it's being reported by the Trump-hating media. Funny how every totalitarian regime starts by undermining the press. Sheer coincidence that in the US it's the first time that the honest government is just pointing out how dishonest the media is.
Nice try, Rasta, but breaking the law, putting others in danger, blocking traffic, and destroying property is not a "peaceful protest". And that is what the Trump administration is aiming at. I am not fooled by your attempt to bring emotion into an argument involving rational logic and reason. They aren't aiming this legislation at people who get a permit to peacefully demonstrate. They are aiming this at the Darwin Winners who block traffic and cause chaos. And you know that.
I am not pro gun control. I want to make that clear from the get go, but I think you are being fairly narrow minded with this stance. First It should be acknowledged that at the time these rights were put down on paper and made law, we didn't have any such thing as automatic weapons. As much as our constitution was written to be able to contend with times beyond its own generation, it is STILL somewhat archaic in certain aspects and no longer represents the actual world we live in today. 300 years can change ALOT of things.. just read a history book about life 300 years ago. As the world evolves, so should its rules and regulations to help better serve the continual human progress.
I have never understood this logic. We didn't have cell phones when the right to privacy was put down, therefore the government can spy on our phone calls. I'm not taking this to any extreme. Just pointing out the fallacy.
You have put to word, the reason for the major disagreements we have as a people today. The Constitution is the foundation of law and governance in our land. It is complete with a procedure for modification when the people agree on a need. The age of the document is not a valid reason to ignore it. In my view, there is no issue so urgent that it must be dealt with in a way that requires us to ignore an affront to the Constitution and it's procedure for amending the pertinent section. Any change needed will pass the test of the amendment process, or it is evidently not needed in the eyes of a sufficient majority.
