Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Trump - flag burning should be loss of citizenship or jail

1356

Replies

  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Yeah, the Constitution and the BOR. You can burn the parchment, but it doesn't harm anyone, or change the concept.
    Outlawing flag burning seems a lot more to me like destroying the things the symbol represents to save the symbol from any possible insult. Very bad trade-off if you ask me.

    One of our former members just posted on Facebook that "the day flag burning is outlawed is the day he starts burning flags."
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I had to look that up....
    http://www.towleroad.com/2016/04/pride-flag/
    Wow! That is stupid. The guy should have been convicted of stealing someone's property, but a hate crime is silly.

    I have never been a fan of hate crimes. It is either crime, or not crime.

    I agree, all Crime is ALL ABOUT HATE!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,095 Senior Member
    My $.02...

    There absolutely should be consequences for burning the American flag; while I think loss of citizenship is a bit heavy handed, I'm not against fines or at least some jail time.

    Scalia said of burning the flag, “Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea.”

    There is a difference between constitutionally protected "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression". Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

    The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals".

    Actions have consequences. This is particularly true in recent years. Burn a gay flag, refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or send a company email telling your Trump supporting employees to resign and there will be backlash just short of being sent to Hell for eternity. There absolutely needs to be some sort of consequences for disrespecting the flag of the nation that you choose to live in. If you are so disappointed with the US that you feel the need to burn its symbol there are countless other countries for you to reside in. Buy a plane ticket.

    As I said, that my two cents. Keep the torches and pitchforks to a minimum.
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA, Pietta 1860 .44 snubnose
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 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?

    I have no idea where I read or heard it but I have passed on this advice for decades when appropriate. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". It applies to many things other than flag burning.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    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.
    I remember only one Army core value. Probably because it's application is universal. The definition of Ethics: "Doing the right thing, even when no one is watching".
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    I remember only one Army core value. Probably because it's application is universal. The definition of Ethics: "Doing the right thing, even when no one is watching".

    I can agree with that!
    -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(
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    Or maybe we just respect the constitution, all of it, including the 10th amendment. One of the beauties of our federal system is that rather than forcing the whole country to live the same way, we have 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws voted on by the citizens of those states and restrained by the constitution. Instead of constantly trying to force the whole country to live how the 51% of it that happens to be in power at any given time thinks it should, we need to let most of those things be determined at the state level. Then individuals can vote with their feet. Yes this process results in some sorting and some division, but it also results in a much higher percentage of Americans being able to live the sort of life they want. It actually works out pretty well too. You get to have your Friday night HS football and Sunday Mass and I get to have my craft beer and flannel. We both get to be happy and occasionally we meet in the middle and burn some powder together. Seems like a pretty great system to me!

    That would be great as long as the feds kept their noses out of States business.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • RocketmanRocketman Banned Posts: 1,118 Senior Member
    Burning the flag and living here is like wiping your ass with a Ford advertisement while owning one and continuing to buy Ford.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Rocketman wrote: »
    Wiping your ass with a Ford advertisement while owning one and continuing to buy Ford.
    I have 3 ing Fords! Yes, I am looking at more at auction.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,986 Senior Member
    Out-of-the-box (Literally) observations:

    Down here there's a less destructive and probably offensive variant of messing with the flag as a protest symbol: Washing it.
    Originally done a few years ago by those against a popular but notoriously corrupt government. Lately adopted by the "liberal" pinkos to show public disagreement (With a lot of friendly media coverage) against practically everything. So far haven't heard any of my friends that have bleed protecting it feeling offended by such practice since there's no destruction or defacing, nor disrespect in that action.

    Don't feel very attached to my sweet-potato country, but out of respect to others, wouldn't commit such a disrespectful action, not even during my teenager "punk band" phase...seems like unlike others, I was well-educated. Watching such behavior in U.S. citizens amazes me and makes me realize they didn't actually realize the overall wonderful (Not perfect thought) place they live on, specially when compared to other places.

    I think no desecration of an image representing an ideal of ANY kind (Flag, totem, book, statue or else....all INANIMATE objects after all) deserves a life-changing punishment. Maybe a lesson-teaching one (Like washing toilets at their local police station or E.R. room for a month) since it seems like as those tantrum-throwers were growing, someone didn't spank them when they needed it.

    ....just sayin'....
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    I am amused that the 1st means burning the flag is ok (abridge freedom of speech), but the 2nd does NOT mean citizens can carry a gun. (shall not infringe)
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    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'm reminded of my state's cell phone use while driving prohibition law. It went into effect several years ago but seems to be ignored more every day. The phone addicts think it was stupid to begin with. At first the $150 fine seemed to be working but didn't last long. I have never liked phones at all much less one that I constantly have with me. Yesterday I saw a man my age or older driving with a phone stuck to his head.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    I'm reminded of my state's cell phone use while driving prohibition law. It went into effect several years ago but seems to be ignored more every day. The phone addicts think it was stupid to begin with. At first the $150 fine seemed to be working but didn't last long. I have never liked phones at all much less one that I constantly have with me. Yesterday I saw a man my age or older driving with a phone stuck to his head.

    I could have written this...

    I'm sick and tired of distracted drivers - 50MPH in the left lane, etc, etc, etc. Its usually pretty obvious. I exercise my horn accordingly. HANG UP AND DRIVE!
    -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(
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    You're moving to Florida, right? Get ready for a new pet peeve!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHiOLP4ETY

    That 80-something year old great-grandma looking THROUGH the steering wheel of her late hubby's Lincoln Town Car or Cadillac Fleetwood doesn't even suspect that you're there- - - -it's HER road, dontcha know?
    :jester:
    Jerry
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    You're moving to Florida, right? Get ready for a new pet peeve!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHiOLP4ETY

    That 80-something year old great-grandma looking THROUGH the steering wheel of her late hubby's Lincoln Town Car or Cadillac Fleetwood doesn't even suspect that you're there- - - -it's HER road, dontcha know?
    :jester:
    Jerry

    With the emphasis on "THUS FAR", driving in Florida has overall been a lot better than driving in California. A lot of it has to do with the adequacy of the roads, so grandma has a harder time getting in everybody's way. What I have noted is that Floridians seem to have problems turning right. If there is a right turn onto a road where the "turn-ees" have their own lane, they will STILL stop! There are a couple of intersections where I have my hand poised above the horn, and my foot poised above the brake because these idiots won't just go on around the corner and keep going! I've noticed I'm not the only one either, I see/hear other people honking about this...

    And then there are the ones who won't get out into the intersection on a left turn - but we have those in California too.
    -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(
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    I used to navigate an 18-wheeler through the San Francisco streets on the way to the Golden Gate bridge back in the mid-1970's- - - -fun stuff! My co-driver took a wrong turn one day and started up one of those endless hills, and ran out of gears before he ran out of hill. The dummy couldn't figure out to use the air horn and ignore the stop signs, and stalled out a couple of streets from the top. We had to back the rig down three blocks because it wouldn't get moving uphill once it got stopped.
    Jerry
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    john9001 wrote: »
    I am amused that the 1st means burning the flag is ok (abridge freedom of speech), but the 2nd does NOT mean citizens can carry a gun. (shall not infringe)

    The funny thing is all the 2nd amendment guys arguing against the 1st. Once again, gun owners and republicans have not let me down. Gun owners care little for the rest of the amendments as long as 2 is protected. They always seem to forget 2 is to guarantee the rest.

    Repubs are no better than Dems. You can have your freedoms as long as they are freedoms I agree with. Dems and Repubs both practice this philosophy, it is just the freedoms they disagree about. My fil is a great example. He will complain about gov co intrusion when he is forced to wear a seatbelt, and in the same breath cheer the new law banning smoking in restaraunts. He can not see his hypocrisy. Do you see yours?

    Freedom has consequences. One of those consequences is people get to have rights and freedoms you don't like.

    Consistency in political thought is extremely rare. Too bad more don't have it.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    The funny thing is all the 2nd amendment guys arguing against the 1st. Once again, gun owners and republicans have not let me down. Gun owners care little for the rest of the amendments as long as 2 is protected. They always seem to forget 2 is to guarantee the rest.

    Repubs are no better than Dems. You can have your freedoms as long as they are freedoms I agree with. Dems and Repubs both practice this philosophy, it is just the freedoms they disagree about. My fil is a great example. He will complain about gov co intrusion when he is forced to wear a seatbelt, and in the same breath cheer the new law banning smoking in restaraunts. He can not see his hypocrisy. Do you see yours?

    Freedom has consequences. One of those consequences is people get to have rights and freedoms you don't like.

    Consistency in political thought is extremely rare. Too bad more don't have it.

    You nailed it! That's what I've been saying all along, the Dems and the Republs are both parties of Slavery. Neither has any interest whatsoever in actual freedom/liberty - only their particular brand of Slavery.

    Now as far as your F-I-L goes, an argument can be made that the seat-belt law is intrusive as it only affects the individual whereas smoking affects everybody in the vicinity. But your point is well taken.
    -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(
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »

    Now as far as your F-I-L goes, an argument can be made that the seat-belt law is intrusive as it only affects the individual whereas smoking affects everybody in the vicinity. But your point is well taken.
    It is a private establishment. You can choose to go somewhere else even if the sushi isn't as good. See consequences. The argument is perfectly sound.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    It is a private establishment. You can choose to go somewhere else even if the sushi isn't as good. See consequences. The argument is perfectly sound.

    That too is a valid argument.
    -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(
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    :beer:
    zorba wrote: »
    That too is a valid argument.
    I did not mean for my response to be as argumentative as it may have sounded.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Both of your positions make the tenuous assumption that "secondhand smoke" is some sort of a real hazard. How's the Unicorn steak and rainbow stew at that restaurant, anyhow?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    I don't think anyone is against the 1st or any other amendments, just debating the interpretation which you know kind of falls under 1A
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Both of your positions make the tenuous assumption that "secondhand smoke" is some sort of a real hazard. How's the Unicorn steak and rainbow stew at that restaurant, anyhow?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
    I fail to understand your point. I argue the restaraunts right to allow smoking. I make no argument about the relative hazards of smoking or being around it. How does the misunderstanding pot pie taste?
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is against the 1st or any other amendments, just debating the interpretation which you know kind of falls under 1A

    I didn't say anyone was against it. They are all for it as long as it fits their interpretation.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Both of your positions make the tenuous assumption that "secondhand smoke" is some sort of a real hazard. How's the Unicorn steak and rainbow stew at that restaurant, anyhow?
    :uhm:
    Jerry

    Complain about the smoke in the restaurant or bar. And then go out on the street and breathe in all that burned and unburned hydrocarbon soup as you stroll down the boulevard. The same chemical cocktail you got in the restaurant, but the food masked the smell. And then drive however many miles home or wherever breathing the exhaust fumes of the cars in front of you. And live in the city or the burbs close to the city and breathe in that mess all day and night every day and night. Sometimes I wonder about people, and sometimes I'm sure. Common sense went out for a smoke break and never came back. :tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    The funny thing is all the 2nd amendment guys arguing against the 1st. Once again, gun owners and republicans have not let me down. Gun owners care little for the rest of the amendments as long as 2 is protected. They always seem to forget 2 is to guarantee the rest.

    Repubs are no better than Dems. You can have your freedoms as long as they are freedoms I agree with. Dems and Repubs both practice this philosophy, it is just the freedoms they disagree about. My fil is a great example. He will complain about gov co intrusion when he is forced to wear a seatbelt, and in the same breath cheer the new law banning smoking in restaraunts. He can not see his hypocrisy. Do you see yours?

    Freedom has consequences. One of those consequences is people get to have rights and freedoms you don't like.

    Consistency in political thought is extremely rare. Too bad more don't have it.
    I didn't say anyone was against it. They are all for it as long as it fits their interpretation.

    Consistency in the english language is extremely rare. Too bad more don't have it
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    I stand corrected. I guess I felt my exanation handled my view, but I chose my words poorly. They argue against it's unrestricted form. They would like to narrow it as others would like to narrow the second. That would better convey what I desired to say. I was too succinct.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    :beer:
    I did not mean for my response to be as argumentative as it may have sounded.
    Naw, didn't sound argumentative, just you making a valid point.
    -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(
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,045 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Both of your positions make the tenuous assumption that "secondhand smoke" is some sort of a real hazard. How's the Unicorn steak and rainbow stew at that restaurant, anyhow?
    :uhm:
    Jerry

    Whatever else can be said for, or against, smoking; cigarette smoke is one of the foulest smelling smokes on the planet - I'd much rather breathe fumes from a well-tuned diesel!
    -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(
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    I stand corrected. I guess I felt my exanation handled my view, but I chose my words poorly. They argue against it's unrestricted form. They would like to narrow it as others would like to narrow the second. That would better convey what I desired to say. I was too succinct.

    No worries. They all have some sort of restrictions placed on them by Uncle. Thats what the gov does, makes them feel powerful and us rebellious when we ignore them.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
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