sssteinkamp
Member
I have always found it curious that some poeple seem to think that the best known symbol of freedom in the world needs to be protected from........well, freedom.
Shane
(Thanks, Jim!)
Shane
(Thanks, Jim!)
Congress has finally slipped the track - again
- Thread starter skidmark
- Start date
- Status
ralphie98
Member
I love our flag and I love what it represents, but that feeling doesn't die when some looney toon burns a flag. It's what it symbolizes that is important, not the piece of cloth. When I see video of flag burnings, I just think to myself that this idiot just spent 20 bucks on a couple of flags, just so he could burn them. If it happened in city limits around here, I'd say have the person arrested for not having a proper burn pit or a burn permit (if one is needed).
What's next? make an amendment saying you can't make fun of the president, and question his decisions because it's disrespectful to our country? That's what the first amend. was put there for, and although many may not agree, I feel the flag burning issue is in the same neighborhood.
What's next? make an amendment saying you can't make fun of the president, and question his decisions because it's disrespectful to our country? That's what the first amend. was put there for, and although many may not agree, I feel the flag burning issue is in the same neighborhood.
Flyboy
Member
If you never plan to use a gun to commit a crime, you shouldn't be upset about registering, providing a ballistic sample, etc.
cuchulainn
Member
If you never plan to publish a newpaper, you shouldn't be upset by censorship.
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Lol, wth is happening? This is just wierd, very wierd. It's Bizarro America!
Might I suggest that historically, I'm just pointing out, historically one first attacks liberties that are toughest to defend, thus trying the courage of the people to stand together for rights. I know the Germany comparisons are totally overdone, but the basic essence here is the same, the theory that if you don't stand up for rights of others they won't stand for yours. It's the same principles, that they take the rights that are least popular first, then move on the the 2nd least popular, and then the 3rd. Maybe it's just me, maybe my head is broken, but it looks prefectly obviously crystal clear, just my opinion.
"Declaration of Guilt
Pastor Martin Niemoller, October 1945
In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communisits,
And I didn't speak up
Because I was not a Communist..."
Might I suggest that historically, I'm just pointing out, historically one first attacks liberties that are toughest to defend, thus trying the courage of the people to stand together for rights. I know the Germany comparisons are totally overdone, but the basic essence here is the same, the theory that if you don't stand up for rights of others they won't stand for yours. It's the same principles, that they take the rights that are least popular first, then move on the the 2nd least popular, and then the 3rd. Maybe it's just me, maybe my head is broken, but it looks prefectly obviously crystal clear, just my opinion.
"Declaration of Guilt
Pastor Martin Niemoller, October 1945
In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communisits,
And I didn't speak up
Because I was not a Communist..."
"Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's comin ta get me."
To continue the analogy session (most of which are inherently flawed):
Hitler would have banned flag burning, so we should not.
Hitler carried a gun, so we should not.
Hitler took pride in having a strong military, so we should not.
...
We can sit and make analogies all day long. I stand by the fact that if you don't plan on burning our country's flag, this shouldn't bother you. Laws are passed all the time that some view as 'stripping away every freedom we have'. But this one - of all things - is the one that bothers you? Wow.
To continue the analogy session (most of which are inherently flawed):
Hitler would have banned flag burning, so we should not.
Hitler carried a gun, so we should not.
Hitler took pride in having a strong military, so we should not.
...
We can sit and make analogies all day long. I stand by the fact that if you don't plan on burning our country's flag, this shouldn't bother you. Laws are passed all the time that some view as 'stripping away every freedom we have'. But this one - of all things - is the one that bothers you? Wow.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never cared about any of my rights until this idea came up to ban flag burning. (The new rolleyes icon isn't strong enough.)
beerslurpy
member
Flag burning is just the excuse we needed to further damage the constitution. </puke>
If they are so eager to fix the constitiution, let them repeal the 17th amendment and then impeach the 8 justices who dont understand what interstate commerce really means.
If they are so eager to fix the constitiution, let them repeal the 17th amendment and then impeach the 8 justices who dont understand what interstate commerce really means.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Just fired off the maddest message I've ever sent Feinswine. That's saying a lot. Oh, well, I will soon be back in Mississippi. I'm sure Sens Lott and Cochran would never support anything this unAmerican.
peacefuljeffrey
member
Seriously?
How on earth do you make the jump from demonstrating discontent with the government (Christ knows we do enough of that in print here!) to violent physical attack possibly leading to murder?
Seriously.
People who claim that burning a flag is not "free speech" shouldn't bitch if they get told that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the @$$hole things that their idiotic t-shirts and bumper stickers say. "Duhhh, is that speaking?! T-shirts don't talk!"
Major points:
Flag burning is most definitely political expression.
It is a weak belief in the strength of America to suggest that the burning of the flag by a handful of malcontents harms American freedom, dignity, or rights.
It is hypocrisy to attempt to silence others' free expression just because you don't like their preferred method of delivery. Anyone supporting the flag-burning amendment is anti-freedom, simple as that. They want to call the shots, as far as what others are free to "say."
How does someone burning the flag hurt you, or hurt America?
How do you reconcile your opposition to people's right to burn the flag with the Islamic insanity of killing those who dishonor the quran? I see them as the same kind of extremist fundamentalist weak-minded crap. Get over it. IF America is strong, it can WITHSTAND the flag being burned, and by so doing, appear even STRONGER.
You're saying, but supporting a ban on flag burning, that America is so weak that it must prevent its silly symbol from being burned. It's like when Randi Rhodes hangs up on callers when they are beginning to make her look like an idiot and disprove her arguments. If you can stand there and let your opponents take their best shot and still triumph, THEN you are strong.
-Jeffrey
SO what you guys are saying is that its OK for the government to pass laws telling you what you can and cannot do with your personal property?
How is telling a person that they cant burn THEIR flag any different from telling a person that they cant convert THEIR rifle into a machinegun?
Someone correct me if im wrong but wouldnt this become one of the VERY few constitutional ammendments specificly geared towards limiting the rights of the people rather than the government? The only other example that springs immediatly to mind is the 18th ammendment, and that was a simply brilliant idea
Using the constitution of the United States as a means of accomplishing social engineering is a HORRIBLE precident that has worked out very poorly in the past.
How is telling a person that they cant burn THEIR flag any different from telling a person that they cant convert THEIR rifle into a machinegun?
Someone correct me if im wrong but wouldnt this become one of the VERY few constitutional ammendments specificly geared towards limiting the rights of the people rather than the government? The only other example that springs immediatly to mind is the 18th ammendment, and that was a simply brilliant idea
Using the constitution of the United States as a means of accomplishing social engineering is a HORRIBLE precident that has worked out very poorly in the past.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
So what you're saying is that you don't have any problems with passing laws telling people what they can and cannot do with their own private property?
Wow.
Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
I'll burn my flag if this becomes an amendment.
I cannot believe this arguement goes for 3 pages worth!
If whatever it is that distresses you so much-not enough green M&M's, Bush won't paint the White House pink or whatever, that you feel the need to arouse an emotional debate rather than engage in an intellectual discussion, you GOT NOTHIN!
I have no sympathy for people, nor am I inclined to listen to people who burn the American flag-at least not yet. If the day ever comes when the flag stands for tyranny and injustice, then its long past time to take it back from the government and give it back to the people where it has always belonged.
I was more upset about people flying the NLF flag than any American flag burning back in the 60's/70's, but considering the source, I calmed down pretty quickly.
Did it anger me? You bet. Especially when I thought of my service and the service of others-and pointedly, those who died fighting under the American flag. Did that mean they died for mom, apple pie and Chevrolet? I don't think so, but they certainly gave all for the people around them, and that should never be taken lightly.
In a truly free land, you are just going to have to put up with morons and idiots from time to time. As a general rule, the people burning flags do not have the guts to really DO anything about their grievance-its just a public temper tantrum. My advice is to quit your crying, and come back to the rest of us with a real case. Who knows? You might even get some support!
In the end, the flag is really just a piece of cloth-the meaning of the flag comes from the hearts of the people, nothing more or less.
If whatever it is that distresses you so much-not enough green M&M's, Bush won't paint the White House pink or whatever, that you feel the need to arouse an emotional debate rather than engage in an intellectual discussion, you GOT NOTHIN!
I have no sympathy for people, nor am I inclined to listen to people who burn the American flag-at least not yet. If the day ever comes when the flag stands for tyranny and injustice, then its long past time to take it back from the government and give it back to the people where it has always belonged.
I was more upset about people flying the NLF flag than any American flag burning back in the 60's/70's, but considering the source, I calmed down pretty quickly.
Did it anger me? You bet. Especially when I thought of my service and the service of others-and pointedly, those who died fighting under the American flag. Did that mean they died for mom, apple pie and Chevrolet? I don't think so, but they certainly gave all for the people around them, and that should never be taken lightly.
In a truly free land, you are just going to have to put up with morons and idiots from time to time. As a general rule, the people burning flags do not have the guts to really DO anything about their grievance-its just a public temper tantrum. My advice is to quit your crying, and come back to the rest of us with a real case. Who knows? You might even get some support!
In the end, the flag is really just a piece of cloth-the meaning of the flag comes from the hearts of the people, nothing more or less.
peacefuljeffrey
member
Delmar wrote:
If you don't know every person who would be burning a flag, your statement/assertion here is just about useless and ridiculous. How on earth do you know what guts a flag-burner does or doesn't have?
Then I take it you can let go of the idea of needing to "protect" it from "desecration"?
-Jeffrey
If you don't know every person who would be burning a flag, your statement/assertion here is just about useless and ridiculous. How on earth do you know what guts a flag-burner does or doesn't have?
Then I take it you can let go of the idea of needing to "protect" it from "desecration"?
-Jeffrey
If you don't know every person who would be burning a flag, your statement/assertion here is just about useless and ridiculous. How on earth do you know what guts a flag-burner does or doesn't have?
Peacefuljeffrey-read the post. I said GENERALLY. That means commonly. I am pretty sure there are exceptions to the rule on this, just as there are on just about anything else where human beings are involved.
How did I base my conclusion? Mainly by KNOWING some of the protestors, if you must ask.
The protests they participated in was convienient-with more than a few who wanted to skip a class and see what the hubbub was all about. At least that was what was told to me, and I have no reason to doubt their statement. What I know for a fact was that NONE of them were actively involved in any great peace movement of the time. Sort of a spectator sport as much as anything.
Then I take it you can let go of the idea of needing to "protect" it from "desecration"?
You could not be more wrong. Personally, I could care less if you set your underwear on fire while wearing them, and would not lift a single finger to help you. Choices made-responsibility kept. Most of the flag burning demonstrations I have seen involve a disagreement with a single subject. Okay-the person or people actively involved have a grievance-fine.
If you want to symbolically burn down the whole government and/or constitution because of one or a few items, there are lots of folks who will look at your demonstration as akin to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. What is the gain here? Taking it to the streets to me is one of the fundamentals of the American Heritage, but lets be thoughtful of what it represents both to the crowd you address as well as any future supporters you wish to enlist.
As to the alleged "guts" of the demonstrators, what frequently happens is the few who start it tend to hide behind the crowd, and when it turns ugly as sometimes happens, frequently, the only "demonstrators" hurt are passers-by. See Kent State, among others. Riddle me this, PeacefulJeffrey? Where were the people who initiated the protest when the shooting happened? Who among them took a bullet for their beliefs? What did they solve?
Peacefuljeffrey-read the post. I said GENERALLY. That means commonly. I am pretty sure there are exceptions to the rule on this, just as there are on just about anything else where human beings are involved.
How did I base my conclusion? Mainly by KNOWING some of the protestors, if you must ask.
The protests they participated in was convienient-with more than a few who wanted to skip a class and see what the hubbub was all about. At least that was what was told to me, and I have no reason to doubt their statement. What I know for a fact was that NONE of them were actively involved in any great peace movement of the time. Sort of a spectator sport as much as anything.
Then I take it you can let go of the idea of needing to "protect" it from "desecration"?
You could not be more wrong. Personally, I could care less if you set your underwear on fire while wearing them, and would not lift a single finger to help you. Choices made-responsibility kept. Most of the flag burning demonstrations I have seen involve a disagreement with a single subject. Okay-the person or people actively involved have a grievance-fine.
If you want to symbolically burn down the whole government and/or constitution because of one or a few items, there are lots of folks who will look at your demonstration as akin to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. What is the gain here? Taking it to the streets to me is one of the fundamentals of the American Heritage, but lets be thoughtful of what it represents both to the crowd you address as well as any future supporters you wish to enlist.
As to the alleged "guts" of the demonstrators, what frequently happens is the few who start it tend to hide behind the crowd, and when it turns ugly as sometimes happens, frequently, the only "demonstrators" hurt are passers-by. See Kent State, among others. Riddle me this, PeacefulJeffrey? Where were the people who initiated the protest when the shooting happened? Who among them took a bullet for their beliefs? What did they solve?
I am totally against the proposed amendment. If I see someone burning an American flag in protest I will exercise my right to let that person know I think he or she is a worthless piece of dog####.
On a related note, sometimes I think the call for tolerance of shameful behavior goes a bit too far. Saying or doing something that is designed to create an angry response just might be risky at times, for good reason. For instance, if a guy insults my wife in front of me then he should fully expect to get knocked on his arse. But I expect to hear responses of "I'll sue!" or "Oh yeah, well then I'll draw my piece and shoot you dead! What about that?!" Good grief.
On a related note, sometimes I think the call for tolerance of shameful behavior goes a bit too far. Saying or doing something that is designed to create an angry response just might be risky at times, for good reason. For instance, if a guy insults my wife in front of me then he should fully expect to get knocked on his arse. But I expect to hear responses of "I'll sue!" or "Oh yeah, well then I'll draw my piece and shoot you dead! What about that?!" Good grief.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I really don't see the point of this proposed Amendment. We had flag-burning in the 1960s/1970s and the nation survived. It didn't seem to affect the birth rate or the death rate or the economy...
Those who would burn the flag are sorta tunnel-visioned, it seems to me. They are seeing it as limited to being only a symbol of government, not as a symbol of the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the nation as a whole--much less as a symbol of their own right to burn it in protest.
As far as violence perpetrated upon one who burns a flag: There are court precedents for a defense in the case of "provocation". If one is provoked into an action, a limited response is not wrongful. An actor could probably justify one good punch, but then self-control should kick in.
Heck, Congress maybe should have limited itself to just passing a law that if I hit some guy if I see him burning a flag, I get one free punch. Then again, Congress gave us the TSA, with its implicit structure meaning we as individuals are incompetent to judge anything at all.
Art
Those who would burn the flag are sorta tunnel-visioned, it seems to me. They are seeing it as limited to being only a symbol of government, not as a symbol of the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the nation as a whole--much less as a symbol of their own right to burn it in protest.
As far as violence perpetrated upon one who burns a flag: There are court precedents for a defense in the case of "provocation". If one is provoked into an action, a limited response is not wrongful. An actor could probably justify one good punch, but then self-control should kick in.
Heck, Congress maybe should have limited itself to just passing a law that if I hit some guy if I see him burning a flag, I get one free punch.
Then again, Congress gave us the TSA, with its implicit structure meaning we as individuals are incompetent to judge anything at all.Art
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Think about it for a second, super-patriots of the forum:
This is creating a mindcrime. The flag is, generally, private property of the person burning it. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you can normally do anything you want with your property... that's what makes it "property."
Burning a flag offends people, not because of the problems inherent in the burning of small bits of privately-owned fabric, but becasue it is an expression of an idea: I don't like America, and have no respect for what it stands for. Forcing people to not express an idea you don't like is the negation of the whole point of the Bill of Rights, in fact the whole point of this damn country.
It isn't freedom if you are only free to do what other people like.
This is creating a mindcrime. The flag is, generally, private property of the person burning it. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you can normally do anything you want with your property... that's what makes it "property."
Burning a flag offends people, not because of the problems inherent in the burning of small bits of privately-owned fabric, but becasue it is an expression of an idea: I don't like America, and have no respect for what it stands for. Forcing people to not express an idea you don't like is the negation of the whole point of the Bill of Rights, in fact the whole point of this damn country.
It isn't freedom if you are only free to do what other people like.
Father Knows Best
Member
+1
Igloodude
Member
Associated Press story said:
I'm wondering why this guy thinks he knows what their answer will be...
And this has to be the first time I can ever recall being on the same side of an issue as Hillary Clinton.
cuchulainn
Member
The only desecration I see is the use of the dead as political props.
Sindawe
Member
Kelo v City of New London: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144145
Ashcroft v Raich: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=141812&highlight=Raich
BATFE; IRS; Waco, TX; Jose Padia, etc, etc...
To my eyes, it looks like that day is nigh Delmar
Actually, Biker, I think this falls under their definition of "desecration." I know many public schools (including the one I went to back in the day) would go nuts if you had the flag on clothing. You're sweating on it, getting it dirty etc. etc. and heaven help you if the patch was on your jeans. Then you're SITTING on it.
And jeez, all you guys who would physically attack someone for "desecrating" a piece of cloth.... Guess that goes to show how much you support "freedom" and "taking the high road."
- Status