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

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MasterPiece Arms.com

member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
101
Location
s9.invisionfree.com/MasterPiece_Arms_MAC
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
 
Well....

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.
 
"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:
 
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. :(
 
But, I cannot vouch for that person's safety if they try it when I'm around.
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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?]
Click to expand...
Maybe he was talking about the firefighters that raised the flag over the wreckage of the WTC. That would make more sense to me.
 
Free speech is exactly that, free speech. But, I cannot vouch for that person's safety if they try it when I'm around.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

+10
 
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'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!
Click to expand...

But its freedom that those people died to protect. To attack someone for simply expressing themselves would be far more disrespectful to thier memory.
 
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.
 
If this Amendemnt actually passes you will see more flag-burning in one week than you have in a lifetime.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Emotional attachment to a cloth does NOT trump property rights!

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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...
When did someone else's property become YOUR sacred ground to defend? Again, see previous paragraph.
 
missed the point

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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Congress has finally slipped the track - again
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
3K
Orthonym
O
A
  • Locked
So this is how the Democrates are trying to extend the AWB!
Replies
3
Views
445
Stand_Watie
S
B
  • Locked
Hughes amendment on Banning Full Auto
Replies
22
Views
2K
DiN_BLiX
D
L
  • Locked
Larry Craig and Dianne Feinstein strike deal on S 397
2 3
Replies
59
Views
5K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
C
  • Locked
Divide and conquer
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
GTSteve03
G
Back
Top