Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Trump - flag burning should be loss of citizenship or jail

2456

Replies

  • casinoroyalecasinoroyale Member Posts: 68 Member
    What happened to putting freedom over feelings? In any case, this won't turn into a law because everyone knows that the Supreme Court would strike it down as they have done in the past.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    What happened to putting freedom over feelings? In any case, this won't turn into a law because everyone knows that the Supreme Court would strike it down as they have done in the past.

    Exactly, which begs the question why propose or speak of a law such as this. Pandering.

    Flag burners are low life's. Those proposing to imprison people for exercising their 1st amendment rights are the same.
  • RocketmanRocketman Banned Posts: 1,118 Senior Member
    Difference is that the flag burners are hiding behind the same right to which they are protesting. That's not about demonstrating a constitutional right, that's about crying like a bitch and hiding and not getting the f out of the country.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    I think that crap about it being 1rst Amendment right is a crock. That was a court ruling when the SCOTUS was mostly libtard or was still leaning that way. A left leaning majority and some creative left leaning lawyers give us rulings like that. Texas V Johnson I think was in 1989. The Chief Justice was Rindquist who was conservative, but there were a lot of libs on the court.

    My problem with the ruling saying that the first Amendment is more about our feelings than just speech is a stretch. Some things should be sacred. The very institutions that make our country great should be immune from desecration or we'll end up like we're headed. We are ripping the very fiber from this great country with this ultra libtard interpretation of things.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Exactly, which begs the question why propose or speak of a law such as this. Pandering.

    Flag burners are low life's. Those proposing to imprison people for exercising their 1st amendment rights are the same.

    I totally disagree. I don't think it's a right. I think it's a misinterpretation of our first amendment. You can say that about any law. We are a country of laws. That's part of what makes this place better than most other countries.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Rocketman wrote: »
    Difference is that the flag burners are hiding behind the same right to which they are protesting.

    They are not hiding behind a right, they are in your face about exercising a right. Westboro Baptists are the same. The are disgusting to me, but it is their right and Americans found a way to fix them without government enforcement. The Patriot Guard. Yes, I am a member.

    To put another spin on this: Open carry of firearms. Many (most?) people cringe at the sight of an OC'er and demand government intervention because it's offensive to them. Should I stop carrying because some snowflake was afraid to walk down the street behind me?

    If you don't like what someone is doing (and they are not harming you physically or financially) simply ignore them.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Some things should be sacred.

    Yeah, the Constitution and the BOR. You can burn the parchment, but it doesn't harm anyone, or change the concept.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Do you know how some Muslims go crazy if the Koran is desecrated in some way, like their whole religion and way of life is threatened? Aren't you glad Americans aren't like that?

    No way jose. Not the same. When's the last time you heard a Christian or a Jew bitching about a Hindu, or a Buddhist for practicing their religion? Almost Never. Now, as a Christian when I hear of another Christian blowing up an abortion clinic I'm the first one to raise hell, even though I'm pro life. When your religion is responsible for blowing up innocent people you can expect some flack, even when you don't condone the institution being attacked. Tell me how to guarantee that only the good ones are being let in and I'll agree with you.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    When you believe something is wrong you try to change it using the prescribed ways that keep a civilized society working. You vote, you write politicians, you start groups of likeminded people and you try to affect change by education and policy changes.

    Prescribed ways...AKA government appoved ways...It's a good thing some people ignored the "prescribed ways" on December 16, 1773.

    Sometimes you have to break shtuff.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • RocketmanRocketman Banned Posts: 1,118 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    They are not hiding behind a right, they are in your face about exercising a right. Westboro Baptists are the same. The are disgusting to me, but it is their right and Americans found a way to fix them without government enforcement. The Patriot Guard. Yes, I am a member.

    To put another spin on this: Open carry of firearms. Many (most?) people cringe at the sight of an OC'er and demand government intervention because it's offensive to them. Should I stop carrying because some snowflake was afraid to walk down the street behind me?

    If you don't like what someone is doing (and they are not harming you physically or financially) simply ignore them.

    If I feel someone is doing something just to intentionally piss me off, I may or may not kick their ass. Its not legal, but a a menacing charge really isn't that much of a setback. I can't believe some of you allow something so grotesque to be considered a right.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Rocketman wrote: »
    If I feel someone is doing something just to intentionally piss me off, I may or may not kick their ass. Its not legal, but a a menacing charge really isn't that much of a setback. I can't believe some of you allow something so grotesque to be considered a right.

    If everyone agreed with rights, they would not have to be protected.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    As cute and "inspirational" as that sounds, it ain't 1773 anymore... :roll:

    And actually they did NOT. The folks that built this country tried to so peaceably first. They tried negotiations and then an orderly separation from the Monarchy. It was England that tried the tyrannical imposition of their will and stated a war that America was forced into. Fun to think one day a bunch of rebel folks took arms and made this country independent. The reality was quite more sedate until the forced shots rang, contrary to the movies and lore.

    Brexit is a much better and recent example of how it works today. But it makes for crappy bumper stickers...


    No, it isn't 1773 or 1860. Yet. And thanks for making my point for me. Peaceful resolution failed because the gov'ts at the time decided independence or secession was a death penalty.

    Brexit works until the EU decides GB has to stay. Then what? More voting?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    If everyone agreed with rights, they would not have to be protected.

    :win:
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Rocketman wrote: »
    If I feel someone is doing something just to intentionally piss me off, I may or may not kick their ass. Its not legal, but a a menacing charge really isn't that much of a setback. I can't believe some of you allow something so grotesque to be considered a right.

    Are you describing open carry? You may want to rethink menacing an OC'er...
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • RocketmanRocketman Banned Posts: 1,118 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Are you describing open carry? You may want to rethink menacing an OC'er...

    No. Where the hell did you gather that??? :uhm:
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    Even I figured the menacing was for flag burners. Likely still a poor choice though.

    :popcorn:
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure all you 3%s are busy oiling all your guns waiting for the day you can gallantly march to your heroic death facing insurmountable odds agains our tyrannical government...

    Resorting to insults....nice.

    BTW, gallantly marching is a gov't prescribed way.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Rocketman wrote: »
    No. Where the hell did you gather that??? :uhm:

    I gave three examples of in your face rights exercised. You said:
    Rocketman wrote: »
    If I feel someone is doing something just to intentionally piss me off, I may or may not kick their ass. Its not legal, but a a menacing charge really isn't that much of a setback. I can't believe some of you allow something so grotesque to be considered a right.

    I've heard open carry described as "something so grotesque, it shouldn't be considered a right."

    I had hoped you'd catch the irony.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Weariness, not insults. I'm just injecting a slight dose of reality into what has turned into a thread full of motivational poster level philosophy. I guess I'm just hopelessly tired of the horribly shallow, glossy brochure bullet point logic that has taken over this country.

    And I get it's fun to talk the talk, VERY FEW walk the walk when the chips are really down. Any lazy idiot can set a match to a flag or loot a Walmart while skipping work or school. Takes real men to lead a country to change by doing real work.

    You resorted to weariness?

    Setting a match to a piece of cloth is not the same as looting, even though you and the GOP views both acts as equal. One has a victim, the other does not.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    ....What we don't need however is the government dictating through force of law what the majority finds socially acceptable. That my friend is a slippery slope that leads to tyranny and ruin.

    I agree with a lot of what you said about the right to burn the flag. I just find it ironic that you would describe making laws to satisfy the majority to be tyranny, but you never considered that cramming Obamacare down our throats, when 60% of the public and one entire political party opposed it was tyranny, as are executive orders that that subvert the will of Congress on very controversial issues.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,135 Senior Member
    I was told the other day: "its only a piece of cloth" "probably made in china" I could only shake my head at the total misunderstanding involved. Remember one of our National Monuments located in Arlington, Va, called the Marine Corps War Memorial. It really happed, tell those guys its just a piece of cloth. I bet those brave Marines and Navy Coprman would have a few words for those that think its OK to burn the symble of our Nation
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I think that crap about it being 1rst Amendment right is a crock. That was a court ruling when the SCOTUS was mostly libtard or was still leaning that way. A left leaning majority and some creative left leaning lawyers give us rulings like that. Texas V Johnson I think was in 1989. The Chief Justice was Rindquist who was conservative, but there were a lot of libs on the court.
    Two of the 5 justices that felt it was protected speech under the First Amendment were Scalia and Kennedy. Notable in the dissent was libtard Justice Stevens.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    Why is disagreeing with you a 'cracker jack box' argument? We get it, you don't like flag burning. Think it's reprehensible. Think the burners are lazy jackwagons who don't have a clue about real life.

    I agree with you on these points and more. Burning flags - any flags - is an empty, fruitless gesture. The act is basically a tantrum being thrown by folks far too old to be throwing tantrums, many of whom are leeches, permanently attached to society's teat... folks who completely remove themselves from any meaningful attempt to be anything other than a parasite on their country of residence.

    In much the same way that we are basically forced to ignore someone's child having a meltdown in a public place, folks like this - folks who are doing what they do in order to get a reaction - we need to completely ignore them. Go ahead and burn your flag. Show the world who you are. Get it out of your system. Folks have not died in vain so long as the snowflakes are able to be any kind of asshat they choose.

    Looting, rioting etc., however, no bueno. Taking someone else's flag? Also no bueno. Wrapping someone in the flag and burning it? Same. Go ahead and have your cute little protest.

    Of course, If there are ordinances against public burning and the proper permits have not been approved, requiring representatives of the local FD to douse said public displays, it's none of my lookout if the snowflakes suffer 'collateral humidity'!
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    And you resort to Craker Jack box arguments? Looting damages property. Flag burning is a direct affront to our ideology and culture and I would dare to say abhorrent to the vast majority of American who I would bet my house, would have no problem with such a law because they want a modicum of mandatory respect for a national symbol.

    You and others who espouse a so called libertarian philosophy have probable never taken a second to figure out at which point it moves to the realm of libertinism. Again there has to be a balance because humans need rules, period!

    An the behavior some cling so tightly to as a form of freedom of expression is exactly the same logic that allows Hillary to believe in opening the borders wide open to get these guys to join the unruly we have already bred here. So tell me exactlly, WHY would you want EITHER in your town and exactly what is the difference between them?


    1) A vast majority of Americans would demand a law for flag burning? You can't get a vast majority of G&A members to agree with you.

    2) Some humans needs rules, and other humans need to rule. I am neither. I don't need someone to tell me burning cloth and looting are the same. I'm quite capable of knowing the difference between starting a very small fire, and stealing/destroying someone else's property.

    3) My little town has the very active abortion protesters, carrying very graphic signs. They stand across from the middle/high school and tell school kids they are going to hell. As abhorrent as I find their behavior, I don't want them removed or punished. They are Americans, they have a cause, and they have the right. The pics above aren't Americans as far as I can tell. Oranges-Apples.


    There may come a day when I want to protest _______________. If you authoritarians are allowed to run unchecked, the right will be removed.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,981 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    You and others who espouse a so called libertarian philosophy have probable never taken a second to figure out at which point it moves to the realm of libertinism. Again there has to be a balance because humans need rules, period!

    What you're looking for here is a long forgotten concept called "Ethics". Not Rules, not Laws - both of which are imperfect attempts to codify the un-codifiable: Ethics - and certainly not so-called "Morals", but Ethics. Libertinism is fine as long as it affects no-one else, but you're quite right: The balance must be served and it hasn't been for a VERY long time. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose, etc.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    A law against flag burning is neither needed, wanted, nor desired. Having the cops look the other way for about 20 minutes while the problem is sorted out is all that is needed. Actually, just a few gallons of water skimmed off a barrel of festering fish guts would work as well as a butt whoopin' and leave the protesters puking up their toenails. Protest-Counter protest. And it would be non violent, except for the projectile puking part.

    Laws are only effective when the people are already predisposed to obey the law passed. If they are not, or the law is just a feel good piece of bullsqueeze, then the law will be broken regularly. That's the point, and the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that no one wants to address. Laws DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS. They have to agree on an individual and collective basis that the law passed is right, just, and for the common good, and does not infringe on the natural rights of the individual. Short of that, it's just a feel good exercise in futility.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,981 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Laws are only effective when the people are already predisposed to obey the law passed. If they are not, or the law is just a feel good piece of bullsqueeze, then the law will be broken regularly. That's the point, and the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that no one wants to address. Laws DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS. They have to agree on an individual and collective basis that the law passed is right, just, and for the common good, and does not infringe on the natural rights of the individual. Short of that, it's just a feel good exercise in futility.

    Correct. Laws and ethics frequently don't intersect.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    No way jose. Not the same. When's the last time you heard a Christian or a Jew bitching about a Hindu, or a Buddhist for practicing their religion? Almost Never. Now, as a Christian when I hear of another Christian blowing up an abortion clinic I'm the first one to raise hell, even though I'm pro life. When your religion is responsible for blowing up innocent people you can expect some flack, even when you don't condone the institution being attacked. Tell me how to guarantee that only the good ones are being let in and I'll agree with you.
    What the hell are you talking about?

    I was making a comparison. And to spell out what I wanted you to understand, let me say it this way...

    You know how crazy those Muslims look, throwing a fit that their precious Koran was defaced in some way? Don't they look silly and irrational? Sure they do and I bet you agree. They look like they let their emotions get out control. The left wants to coddle and protect their "right" to not be offended like all the other snowflakes we have been complaining about. I feel, and maybe you agree that these efforts, their thin skin and complete lack of tolerance is detrimental to our society.

    Now how is that different from Americans throwing a fit that their flag is defaced? Do nationalists need laws protecting them from being insulted and offended just like the precious snowflakes want to be? I thought Trump was supposed to represent people that were fed up with that crap.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    What the hell are you talking about?

    I was making a comparison. And to spell out what I wanted you to understand, let me say it this way...

    You know how crazy those Muslims look, throwing a fit that their precious Koran was defaced in some way? Don't they look silly and irrational? Sure they do and I bet you agree. They look like they let their emotions get out control. The left wants to coddle and protect their "right" to not be offended like all the other snowflakes we have been complaining about. I feel, and maybe you agree that these efforts, their thin skin and complete lack of tolerance is detrimental to our society.

    Now how is that different from Americans throwing a fit that their flag is defaced? Do nationalists need laws protecting them from being insulted and offended just like the precious snowflakes want to be? I thought Trump was supposed to represent people that were fed up with that crap.

    Dude... linear thought? :nono:
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Bottom line for me is that the flag they are burning is the same flag that drapes the coffins of active duty killed in combat, and veterans, and is carefully folded and handed to a family member. There's just some things that transcend the right to protest in that manner.

    So.............................if you light that flag on fire, then
    14102607_1199127486812295_4144820018499426895_n_zpsfsgfgxk7.jpg
    And deserve to beaten until you can't move even your eyelids.
    I attended my Grandson's private school incredible Veterans Day program for the second time. They had a new demonstration with the state's designated Honor Guard folding the flag while the meaning of each fold was explained. Fascinating.

    The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War.[3] Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5–4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression. Congress responded to the Johnson decision by passing a Flag Protection Act, only to see the Supreme Court reaffirm Johnson by the same 5–4 majority in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), declaring that flag burning was constitutionally-protected free speech. Although I am disgusted and disappointed by the ruling I have to abide by it.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement