New NBA CBA bans jet skis, hover boards, guns etc

[MustafaSTL]

What goal post am I moving

Just because you've become frustrated it doesn't mean that I moved a gatdamn goal post

So what about this whole constitutional barrier that you are now acting like you didn't bring up?

 

[OG Talk]

Everyone in here is clowning and attacking @Ronnie Lott

But does anyone have an example of any job, occupation or corporation that bans its employees from owning legal fire arms?

We aren't talking about banning guns at work. That's clearly the employers right.

But I've never heard of a job saying you can't own legal weapons PERIOD. And with that ownership the responsible thing is to properly train which includes going to shooting ranges.

What am I missing?

 

[Ronnie Lott]

Everyone in here is clowning and attacking @Ronnie Lott

But does anyone have an example of any job, occupation or corporation that bans its employees from owning legal fire arms?

We aren't talking about banning guns at work. That's clearly the employers right.

But I've never heard of a job saying you can't own legal weapons PERIOD. And with that ownership the responsible thing it to properly train which includes going to shooting ranges.

What am I missing?

My point exactly. But some people keep playing dumb

 

[Ronnie Lott]

So what about this whole constitutional barrier that you are now acting like you didn't bring up?

Go back and read my previous posts.
I stand on what I said The NBA will never forbid players from legally owning a firearm

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

How am I "all over the place"

First off, I never said "the players would never agree" Please don't put words in my mouth Please quote me where I supposedly said this?

Secondly Im allowed to have more than one argument/viewpoint on this topic And me saying that this rule has racial undertones is a fact

You said 'it wouldn't pass'. Seeing that the bargaining committees for both the owners and the players have already agreed to this, the only way this wouldn't pass is if the owners rejected the CBA over this rule or if the players rejected the CBA over this rule. The owners wouldn't care about a rule being imposed on the players so the only logical conclusion was that you were asserting that the players wouldn't let this pass. But since you are now saying that's not what you meant, it looks like you have no clue what's going on. How could this measure 'not pass' other than the players or owners rejecting the CBA?


And there's nothing wrong with arguing different points, but when someone points out that the Constitution does not prevent the CBA from having this rule and you respond with 'bu...bu...bu...look at the racial undertones' that constitutes being all over the place and deflecting.

 

[prophecypro]

Well I guess we know why Draymond tweeted out disappointment about the new CBA cryptically a few days back

 

[Malta]

@Ronnie Lott is a shytty poster in general, he makes a stupid point then argues it to death and anyone that comes along and makes a better argument for his stupid point he'll be like "Yeah, that's what I was saying" but he's too dumb to actually say what it is he's co-signing.

My point exactly. But some people keep playing dumb

No, that isn't what you were saying dumb ass, you didn't understand how a collectively bargained agreement between two parties could "supersede" the constitution Now you're trying to piggyback on a much more intelligent poster like @gator_king making a point you weren't making.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

Everyone in here is clowning and attacking @Ronnie Lott

But does anyone have an example of any job, occupation or corporation that bans its employees from owning legal fire arms?

We aren't talking about banning guns at work. That's clearly the employers right.

But I've never heard of a job saying you can't own legal weapons PERIOD. And with that ownership the responsible thing is to properly train which includes going to shooting ranges.

What am I missing?

No one denies it's a weird extremely uncommon rule. We're stating that the US Constitution does not forbid it. And there's plenty of examples of jobs stripping rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as a condition of employment.

 

[Malta]

And nowhere does it say they can't own firearms, I'm sure legally owned guns are fine, but dudes getting arrested with illegal guns, or shooting themselves or some shyt, that is something that will void your contract. The NBA contracts are iron clad, you could kill someone right now and there's not much the team can do to void your shyt. Gilbert Arenas still was getting paid after he brought a pistol to the arena, I'm going to bet that in the new CBA you can get your contract thrown in the bushes over that.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I'm Straight up bodying nikkaz in here

Be dumb as fukk, and relish in your own ignorance brehs

 

[PortCityProphet]

Well I guess we know why Draymond tweeted out disappointment about the new CBA cryptically a few days back

I didn't see where kicking people in the nuts was prohibited

 

[OG Talk]

And nowhere does it say they can't own firearms, I'm sure legally owned guns are fine, but dudes getting arrested with illegal guns, or shooting themselves or some shyt, that is something that will void your contract. The NBA contracts are iron clad, you could kill someone right now and there's not much the team can do to void your shyt. Gilbert Arenas still was getting paid after he brought a pistol to the arena, I'm going to bet that in the new CBA you can get your contract thrown in the bushes over that.

That's the part I was curious about. The article is really vague.

They can probably even ban things like sports hunting under the guise of it being recreational and unnecessary like jet skis. But there is no way they can say you can't have a legal licensed weapon on your private property. That would be unprecedented.

This seems like a "Gilbert Arenas" type rule if anything...

 

[Malta]

That's the part I was curious about. The article is really vague.

They can probably even ban things like sports hunting under the guise of it being recreational and unnecessary like jet skis. But there is no way they can say you can't have a legal licensed weapon on your private property. That would be unprecedented.

I think it'll be provisions in the event a player shoots themselves, or gets arrested with a firearm, the players wouldn't agree to it if it were outright non-ownership of guns. Right now, if a dude shot himself and couldn't play for the season their team would try to void their contract and the union would fight it and most likely win. Right now it seems like the only way to void contracts is if someone fails a physical after signing one. Arenas & Crittenton were suspended with pay, while Javaris would have no doubt been voided if they could have.

Some have urged the Wizards to void Arenas' contract, but the source said there is nothing specific in the players' collective bargaining agreement regarding a legal threshold for doing so

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Everyone in here is clowning and attacking @Ronnie Lott

But does anyone have an example of any job, occupation or corporation that bans its employees from owning legal fire arms?

We aren't talking about banning guns at work. That's clearly the employers right.

But I've never heard of a job saying you can't own legal weapons PERIOD. And with that ownership the responsible thing is to properly train which includes going to shooting ranges.

What am I missing?

In most at will states an employer can chose to not hire you or even fire you for owning a gun.

Unless there's a specific law on the books, there's no federal or constitutional protection for employment discrimination of gun owners.

 

[OG Talk]

In most at will states an employer can chose to not hire you or even fire you for owning a gun.

Unless there's a specific law on the books, there's no federal or constitutional protection for employment discrimination of gun owners.

This is crazy. I didn't know this.