First they came for our cloths with flags printed on them...


PDA






MasterPiece Arms.com
June 23, 2005, 01:35 PM
BBC NEWS


US House passes flag-burning ban [pure phony patriotism at work]


The US House of Representatives has approved a constitutional amendment allowing lawmakers to ban flag burning.

The Republican-led House voted 286-130 on the divisive measure, which now goes before the Senate.

Similar moves in the past have failed to gather the majority required for constitutional amendments in both houses of the US Congress.

The draft amendment aims to override a 1989 Supreme Court ruling protecting flag desecration as free speech.

The issue has been a rallying cause for conservatives ever since.

It gathered political momentum in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center," said Republican Randy Cunningham, a Californian congressman. [He did NOT just say that did he?]

"Ask them and they will tell you - pass this amendment" [Oh...my...God. I do not believe a U.S. congressman is actually using the dead from 9/11 to campaign for legislation, and actually saying they would agree with him if they WEREN'T dead!]

Senate hurdle

Wednesday's vote was the fifth time the Republican-dominated House has approved the amendment.

But so far it has failed to get the required 67 votes needed in the Senate.

However Democrats are divided on the issue, and recent changes in the Senate mean the measure could be approved.

"There are too many scenarios where we would lose," Terri Ann Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union - which opposes the amendment - told the New York Times.

The move does not directly prohibit desecration of the flag - but allows individual state legislatures and the US Congress to enact such a ban.

If the Senate in turn approves the amendment by a two-thirds majority, it still has to be ratified by 38 states.

The constitution has been amended 27 times, including the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4122814.stm

Published: 2005/06/23 11:02:27 GMT

© BBC MMV

If you enjoyed reading about "First they came for our cloths with flags printed on them..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
one-shot-one
June 23, 2005, 01:51 PM
if you want to argue about politicians i'll pass.
but i agree people should have the free speech to burn the flag as long as those who gave themselves to serve under it retain the right to inflict serious bodily injury on those people as part of their free speech!
:neener:
by the way i'm not a vet but my dad was that flag covered his coffin when we burried him, and those that served do not deserve to see this type of protest, find something else to make your point.

Rockrivr1
June 23, 2005, 01:58 PM
"but i agree people should have the free speech to burn the flag as long as those who gave themselves to serve under it retain the right to inflict serious bodily injury on those people as part of their free speech"

+1

Free speech is exactly that, free speech. But, I cannot vouch for that person's safety if they try it when I'm around. :fire:

Fletchette
June 23, 2005, 02:03 PM
MPA,

I agree with you. This is phony patriotism. It is right-wing PC.

My position is, if the flag is the property of the protester, that protester can indeed destroy his properrty. If it isn't, arrest him for vandalism.

If this Amendemnt actually passes you will see more flag-burning in one week than you have in a lifetime. :(

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 02:06 PM
But, I cannot vouch for that person's safety if they try it when I'm around. Nor can I vouch for yours should you innate the use of force against me or mine while we exercise the right of free speech.

Debate, argue, bicker, yell, scream, foamy mouthed ranting. Fine.

Lay hands apon another because you disagree with them. You'll be in for a world of hurt.

IZinterrogator
June 23, 2005, 02:11 PM
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center," said Republican Randy Cunningham, a Californian congressman. [He did NOT just say that did he?]Maybe he was talking about the firefighters that raised the flag over the wreckage of the WTC. That would make more sense to me.

Lone_Gunman
June 23, 2005, 02:14 PM
Free speech is exactly that, free speech. But, I cannot vouch for that person's safety if they try it when I'm around.

You realize that you violate the law if you attack someone because of speech, right?

I don't know if you carry a gun or not. Hopefully not, or else you may end up serving time for murder.

Derby FALs
June 23, 2005, 02:18 PM
You realize that you violate the law if you attack someone because of speech, right?

Federal law at that...

MatthewVanitas
June 23, 2005, 02:18 PM
Scenario:

"Your honor, there I was, expressing my political opinions by burning an American flag, which I purhased at Wal-Mart, while standing on my own front yard. Suddenly, this maniac jumps out of his car, trespasses on my property, and proceeds toward me with a tire iron threatening grievous bodily injury or death. At that point, I had no choice but to draw my .45 Kimber and place two 230FMJ rounds in his chest. Any reasonable person in my situation would recognize the danger of imminent bodily harm."

So, who would the hero be by THR standards?

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 02:23 PM
So, who would the hero be by THR standards? In my book, the flag burner. Those who protect their rights, even with lethal force, are the heroes.

BigG
June 23, 2005, 02:23 PM
Often the same yokels who stretch free speech to its furthest extent seek to limit the RKBA to its smallest extent. Why is that?

Ransom
June 23, 2005, 02:24 PM
I dont agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

That is what America is about.

edit:

Often the same yokels who stretch free speech to its furthest extent seek to limit the RKBA to its smallest extent. Why is that?

What amazes me its funny the other way around as well. An awful lot of right wingers will argue that the second amendment shouldnt be limited but will argue up and down how the first amendment should.

Maybe, as in a lot of things, the truth lies in the middle. Both amendments shouldnt be limited.

MrTuffPaws
June 23, 2005, 02:33 PM
What amazes me its funny the other way around as well. An awful lot of right wingers will argue that the second amendment shouldnt be limited but will argue up and down how the first amendment should.

+10

Rockrivr1
June 23, 2005, 02:46 PM
I've had both friends and family who have died in war/conflict/peace keeping effort and many more that have served, including myself, for me to just stand around while some "yokel" decides to burn a flag in protest to what they have paid the ultimate price to defend. No way no how!

While it may not turn to violence I can ultimately say that the person holding the flag will not be holding it for long. If that gets me in trouble for theft or some such other offense then SO BE IT!!! That piece of cloth is sacred ground in my mind and I'll defend it as such.

Ransom
June 23, 2005, 02:57 PM
I've had both friends and family who have died in war/conflict/peace keeping effort and many more that have served, including myself, for me to just stand around while some "yokel" decides to burn a flag in protest to what they have paid the ultimate price to defend. No way no how!

But its freedom that those people died to protect. To attack someone for simply expressing themselves would be far more disrespectful to thier memory.

cropcirclewalker
June 23, 2005, 03:00 PM
And thus, the concept of federalism draws it's last breath. :(

edited to add; Mr. Ransom is a quicker typster than me. I wonder if good ol' Tom Jefferson or George Washington considered themselves as subject and beholding to the Stars and Stripes.

Third_Rail
June 23, 2005, 03:01 PM
If this Amendemnt actually passes you will see more flag-burning in one week than you have in a lifetime.

Yep, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. The 1st Amendment means just as much to me as the 2nd does. This proposed law is BS.

Flyboy
June 23, 2005, 03:21 PM
That piece of cloth is sacred ground in my mind...
Perhaps your problem, then, is that you worship objects, instead of concepts.

MasterPiece Arms.com
June 23, 2005, 03:41 PM
Rockriver1, this is pure reckless emotionalism that you probably decry the gun banners for using: "I've had both friends and family who have died in war/conflict/peace keeping effort and many more that have served, including myself, for me to just stand around while some "yokel" decides to burn a flag in protest to what they have paid the ultimate price to defend. No way no how!

While it may not turn to violence I can ultimately say that the person holding the flag will not be holding it for long. If that gets me in trouble for theft or some such other offense then SO BE IT!!! That piece of cloth is sacred ground in my mind and I'll defend it as such."

I want to personally thank the TRUE patriots who have stood up in this thread for private property rights, which is what the founders protected BEFORE ANY STINKIN' FLAG WAS SEWN: Fletchette, Sindawe, Lone_Gunman, Derby FALs, MatthewVanitas, Ransom, cropcirclewalker, Third_Rail, and Flyboy.

Clearly Rockriver1 has an emotional attachment to an idealized fantasy projected onto a cloth. Obviously it means more to him than the ACTUAL liberties. I'd bet a weeks pay that he doesn't like it when the ANTI GUNNERS use that type of emotion to destroy the 2nd amendment. I invite him to STAY in Massachusettes where highly charged emotion trumps any and all property rights.

I can ultimately say that the person holding the flag will not be holding it for long.

Mr Rockriver1, I sense that this is PURE machismo, bravado, and big mouthed bluff, but if you actually mean that veiled threat: bring it on pal. You name the public place and I'll bring my flag, the gas, the lighter, and the water bucket (to satisfy the fire marshall, which we've done when staging U.N. flag burning rallys).

That piece of cloth is sacred ground in my mind and I'll defend it as such." When did someone else's property become YOUR sacred ground to defend? Again, see previous paragraph.

mtnbkr
June 23, 2005, 03:48 PM
Perhaps your problem, then, is that you worship objects, instead of concepts
+1

Chris

P95Carry
June 23, 2005, 03:51 PM
Careful with the thread direction folks - this is a highly emotive issue, from whichever direction you are coming.

But try and keep it cool eh! :)

VARifleman
June 23, 2005, 03:53 PM
Perhaps your problem, then, is that you worship objects, instead of concepts
Sounds like Idolatry to me...I thought this was settled 5000 yrs ago? :scrutiny:

one-shot-one
June 23, 2005, 03:54 PM
if you want to go out buy a flag and hide in you back yard and burn it go ahead, if you go out buy a flag and stand out in frount (on their property or on public street) and burn the flag you deserve and butt wooping.
it ain't the privite property rights i got a problem with its you choice of expression. that flag is only colored cloth but you (they whatever) are not burning it as a piece of cloth. that does not convey much of a message unless your beef is with the textile industry. the act of burning the flag is a statement against more tan a piece of cloth, kinda like yelling bomb at the airport, you can do it but don't expect everyone to be happy about it.
this like many more threads here will not be resolved to either sids satisfaction, that much i can promise. :banghead:

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 03:54 PM
Perhaps your problem, then, is that you worship objects, instead of concepts This proposal is an affront to both the 1st Amendment and the 1st Commandment.

VARifleman
June 23, 2005, 03:57 PM
Beat you to it, cuchulainn! :neener:

one-shot-one
June 23, 2005, 04:13 PM
Masterpiecearms looked at you web site. Nice eagle, maybe after the flag burning we can go shoot a few, after all their only birds right (taste like chicken).
Ps , I love it when an individual accuses someone of “PURE machismo, bravado, and big mouthed bluff, but if you actually mean that veiled threat”
And then tells them “You name the public place” both a bit childish.

Rockrivr1
June 23, 2005, 04:19 PM
Yes, it might be emotion talking but it is absolutely not PURE Machoism, bravado, and big mouthed bluff. Anyone who knows me can speak to that. As I've heard it said about me before, I'm reserved, low keyed and not someone who goes out and starts problems and conflicts. BUT, I find that this particular issue riles me more then anything I can think of.

I strongly think that the OBJECT (Flag) has a direct link to the Concept (Freedoms). Burning the first is a direct slap in the face to the second and as such a direct insult to those who have died protecting it. Protest anything anyway you want. That's the freedom we have in this country. Just don't expect it to be without consequences.

MasterPiece Arms.com. I live in Mass, I stay here to try and make things better for us that believe in the 2nd Amendment. It might be futile, but I try the best I can. You know where I live so let me know when you come to my state to burn a flag. I'll be there. I'll be alone. That flag will not burn.

fjolnirsson
June 23, 2005, 04:25 PM
Myself, I've always felt that flag burning was a disgusting, childish way of expressing ones'self. It is disrespectful to the veterans who have fought and died for what the American flag stands for.
However, Those veterans fought and died, in part, so that folks here have the right to burn the flag. If we outlaw desecration of the flag(which is how the amendment is worded, btw), who defines what constitutes desecration? And what is next in line? Pictures of the president? Would that mean we couldn't use Clinton's picture as a target? Maybe Senators pictures next? After that, we could outlaw the desecration of red, white and blue bunting, followed by any speech or action which expresses displeasure with an elected official.
If this Amendment passes, it will be very hard for me to resist lighting up a flag in my front yard. I think a small part of me would die with that act. But I would willingly sacrifice it to fight for my (and your)right to free speech. Just as I would willingly die for my right to bear arms.
I've sent letters to my Congresscreatures, letting them know this amendment is a horrific waste of resources when we are dealing with so many more pressing issues.
My .02
YMMV.

MasterPiece Arms.com
June 23, 2005, 04:37 PM
...the act of burning the flag is a statement against more tan a piece of cloth, kinda like yelling bomb at the airport...

Well, I can truly say I have heard it all now. Burning my flag on a public street is now the SAME as yelling "bomb" at the airport. lol, lmao, roflmao, and LSHMBH! Sweet fancy Moses! :barf:

That nonsensical "bomb" analogy is actually collectivist "thinking" and I just realized it. He's actually saying that me burning my flag on a public street upsets him SOOOOO much and probably so many other people, that it actually hurts the collective in the same way that yelling "bomb" in an airport is damaging. Before I address that, we have GOT to close the government "schools" because people just CANNOT make analogies anymore!

Anyway, the major flaw in his "yelling bomb at the airport" example, besides the collectivist point of view, that he fails to see, is that yelling "bomb" is misleading, deceptive, and causes actual disruption. Me burning my flag on a public street MAY result in EMOTIONAL DISTRESS to those who have allowed themselves to become emotionally attached to a symbol.

The sheer fact that "one shot one" equates emotional distress on the same level as the disruption caused by someone yelling "bomb" at an airport is downright scary. It also shows just how emotionally deep it goes, and frankly, how unstable emotional people really are.

P.S. Changing the subject by weaving the bald eagle into this thread is total desperation when someone knows they have lost the argument. When all you've got is emotionalism, the sky's the limit aint it!

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 04:45 PM
"Your honor, there I was, expressing my political opinions by burning an American flag, which I purhased at Wal-Mart, while standing on my own front yard. Suddenly, this maniac jumps out of his car, trespasses on my property, and proceeds toward me with a tire iron threatening grievous bodily injury or death. At that point, I had no choice but to draw my .45 Kimber and place two 230FMJ rounds in his chest. Any reasonable person in my situation would recognize the danger of imminent bodily harm."

"Your honor, there I was, minding my own business strolling down the sidewalk, when suddenly, this maniac comes running in circles on fire and is screaming epithaths about the government!
My first instinct was to put the flames out before the poor man was burnt to a crisp, but all I had handy was the tire iron I bought from Wal-mart because my recent used car purchase did not include one, so knocked him to the ground with the intention of rolling him around to put out the flames. How was I to know that in the heat of the moment, that bucket was full of gasoline instead of water?" :evil:

Clean97GTI
June 23, 2005, 04:55 PM
I would also like to note that this is another attempt at stepping on the 1st amendment.

The scary thing is that if the free speech part of the amendment is reduced in power, whats next? Separation of church and state is definitely a possibility with a president who is so radically religious.

Art Eatman
June 23, 2005, 04:57 PM
What has THR become? Vent Central for whenever somebody's upset with something? These orgasmic emotings are beginning to get just really, really tiresome.

It's one thing to express one's opinion on any subject pertinent to THR. I don't understand these childish, out-of-control rants. These "Can you top this?" types of ever-increasing levels of "What I'm gonna do to he/she/it is..."

Go off and dig into your stash of calm-down pills--and calm down!

Sheesh!

Art

MasterPiece Arms.com
June 23, 2005, 05:01 PM
"Your honor, there I was, minding my own business strolling down the sidewalk, when suddenly, this maniac comes running in circles on fire and is screaming epithaths about the government!
My first instinct was to put the flames out before the poor man was burnt to a crisp, but all I had handy was the tire iron I bought from Wal-mart because my recent used car purchase did not include one, so knocked him to the ground with the intention of rolling him around to put out the flames. How was I to know that in the heat of the moment, that bucket was full of gasoline instead of water?"

Hmmm, felony assault with a tire iron, topped off with a bucket of gasoline for good measure. Your TRUE colors come shining through, and they are not red white and blue! This is more of what I was talking about when I said people just cant make analogies anymore. To "Delmar," the first example of using your .45 and defending against an attacker who HAS a tire iron is on the same level as aggravated murder, to the point that he would use it to try and illistrate, whatever his point was.

Dale Taylor
June 23, 2005, 05:02 PM
Art, you are on target!! daleltaylor@att.net

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 05:06 PM
MasterPiece Arms.com
Take a break from your holier than thou postings-that was parody.

You wanna burn flags? Go right ahead. Most folks aren't going to listen to you just because they figure you are trying to get their goat-just like my previous post apparently did yours. A fine example of the very emotions you speak of.

Burn away.

one-shot-one
June 23, 2005, 05:11 PM
as it is a waste of time.
masterpiece i may be emotional but i'm not the one challenging folks to meet me for physical conflict. i have not "lost" this disagreement for that i would have to agree with your point of view, not gonna happen on this subject. your pseudo "intellectual" put downs of my position on this are not as effective as might believe.
anyway i'm going over to the fishin' forum for a while were the most heated argument is catch and release or keep and cook.
you guys have fun but remember i told you niether side will budge on this.

MasterPiece Arms.com
June 23, 2005, 05:14 PM
If you say so Delmar, but now that you've got him, what are you going to do with him? Please just don't expose him to any of your "parodies." :)

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:2p2VFtbV1CMJ:www.mikejs.com/thestun/08_images/goat.jpg

natedog
June 23, 2005, 05:15 PM
I'll burn a flag the first day this passes.

Sean Smith
June 23, 2005, 05:17 PM
Isn't this a duplicate topic anyway? :confused:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144052

I spent almost 6 years in the military. As far as I'm concerned, people can burn all the flags they want. Doing so makes them look like amoral vermin and mental midgets, of course.

Here is the rub: burning the flag only offends people because of the sentiment behind it. Nobody cares about setting privately-owned fabrics in bright colors on fire in general. Nobody cares if you burn the flag for a legitimate reason (which does exist, by the way... a worn out flag is supposed to be disposed of by burning). It is burning the flag with a-hole intent that bothers people. Therefore, outlawing its burning is legislating a mindcrime... forbidding a kind of thought, basically.

Oops.

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 05:17 PM
MasterPiece Arms.com - now thats what I call a self propelled lawn mower, and they aren't near as noisy!

Art Eatman
June 23, 2005, 05:24 PM
I ain't gonna merge'em. Go play on that other thread. If this one had a point, it broke off.

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "First they came for our cloths with flags printed on them..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!