I never understood how you can't destroy money, but you can burn the flag.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Finally...
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Maybe it's the Life Scout in me, but I thought that you already weren't supposed to burn the flag.
http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/ppweb/243-01.htm
Respect of the Flag (36 U.S.C. 176)
http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/ppweb/243-01.htm
Respect of the Flag (36 U.S.C. 176)
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
As much as I am adamently opposed to any disrespect for the National Colors I am also equally against any constitutional admentment further limiting rights.
Let's get back to teaching our youth respect for such things and this wouldn't be a problem. Then, if it happens it won't be anything a good ass-whippin' won't take care of.
Let's get back to teaching our youth respect for such things and this wouldn't be a problem. Then, if it happens it won't be anything a good ass-whippin' won't take care of.
Weren't supposed to, and legally able to under the first amendment are 2 different things.
This latest attempt (there have been several before it that have failed) will actually make it illegal to desecrate the flag.
GOD I hope it passes this time!
Adam
This is the best picture of what happened to some terrorist bastard doing it!
This latest attempt (there have been several before it that have failed) will actually make it illegal to desecrate the flag.
GOD I hope it passes this time!
Adam
This is the best picture of what happened to some terrorist bastard doing it!
Personally, I think they should let losers burn flags; if they don't mind getting pummelled by the offended public. You can bet they want the government around then to protect thier "right" to do it. Gimme a break. [roll]
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 1
I fully agree with Tony's post.
Freedom of speech is a hard freedom to handle. It requires a great deal of effort. Most of that effort is exerted by allowing the free expression of views that are diametrically opposed to one's own.
The Supreme Court ruled that burning of the flag is an expression of free speech. I happen to agree with this ruling. This amendment smacks of oppression and thought control to me. Where does it stop? Today it's burning the flag, tomorrow it's wearing an article of clothing with the image of the flag on it in an "improper" location, a few years from now it's posting negative comments about the administration in a personal blog (China does it all day, every day). It's a slippery slope and when we start allowing erosion of one liberty (even one that is as provocative as burning a symbol of our country) we open the door for other liberties to be tossed upon the fire. That to me is a greater desecration of what our country stands for than burning its symbol.
Just my $.02.
Freedom of speech is a hard freedom to handle. It requires a great deal of effort. Most of that effort is exerted by allowing the free expression of views that are diametrically opposed to one's own.
The Supreme Court ruled that burning of the flag is an expression of free speech. I happen to agree with this ruling. This amendment smacks of oppression and thought control to me. Where does it stop? Today it's burning the flag, tomorrow it's wearing an article of clothing with the image of the flag on it in an "improper" location, a few years from now it's posting negative comments about the administration in a personal blog (China does it all day, every day). It's a slippery slope and when we start allowing erosion of one liberty (even one that is as provocative as burning a symbol of our country) we open the door for other liberties to be tossed upon the fire. That to me is a greater desecration of what our country stands for than burning its symbol.
Just my $.02.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Very well put, Yogo. Our rights have eroded more than the FL beaches. You can't pick and chose which amendments you want to keep and which you don't. That's the current problem with the 2nd and 4th. Everyone should demand the protection of our BoR's, all of them, and all they stand for.
People who like to show off by burning or otherwise desecrating the falg really piss me off. But whenever I start to wish "there ought to be a law," I ask myself two simple questions:
(1) What does the flag really stand for? and
(2) What was it that we fought and bled for?
Suddenly I find myself no longer the least bit any such law or amendment.
In the light of the USSC's most recent rulings (Medical Marijuana - the Commerce Clause means that congress can regulate anything that might possibly be involved in interstate comerce under totally different circumstances than those in this particular case; New London - eminant domain allows local government to "take" your home and hand it over to some developer who promises tobuild condos or offices on the property that will provide more tax revenue to the town than you're currently paying.) is there really any need for a flag-desecration ammendment? After all, somebody could start up an internet business where people in any state could pay to have the flag desecrated, therefore congress has the right to regulate it. Or, alternatively, since you're not paying property taxes on your flags and matches currently, I could tell your town that if they'd confiscate all the flags and matches and give them to me, I'd put them in a storage facility on which I'd pay property taxes to them. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th Amendments? Yeah, I got your "Constitution" right here.
Ken
(1) What does the flag really stand for? and
(2) What was it that we fought and bled for?
Suddenly I find myself no longer the least bit any such law or amendment.
In the light of the USSC's most recent rulings (Medical Marijuana - the Commerce Clause means that congress can regulate anything that might possibly be involved in interstate comerce under totally different circumstances than those in this particular case; New London - eminant domain allows local government to "take" your home and hand it over to some developer who promises tobuild condos or offices on the property that will provide more tax revenue to the town than you're currently paying.) is there really any need for a flag-desecration ammendment? After all, somebody could start up an internet business where people in any state could pay to have the flag desecrated, therefore congress has the right to regulate it. Or, alternatively, since you're not paying property taxes on your flags and matches currently, I could tell your town that if they'd confiscate all the flags and matches and give them to me, I'd put them in a storage facility on which I'd pay property taxes to them. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th Amendments? Yeah, I got your "Constitution" right here.
Ken
Being a Constitutional Conservative, I understand Freedom of Speach. However, that being said... It is against the law to burn a cross. Why? Becasue that is considered a hate crime. Is not the burning of the symbol of this great nation also a symbol of hate? And if not, then why do rag heads (and others) do it?
If one needs to disagree, and one chooses to use the flag as a symbol of that disagreement, then hang in UP SIDE DOWN. One's ability to show disrespect can still be voiced loud and clear and for a longer period of time than the few minutes it takes to burn the flag. (I hung it upside down on a few occaisions when that asshat Clinton was president. As much as I hate that man <especially after seeing Blackhawk Down>, I would NEVER have thought of burning it)
Too many have died for the piece of red, white and blue, and for far longer than all of us have been alive. Sorry guys - on this one I come down on the side of the flag and punishing those that would destroy it.
If one needs to disagree, and one chooses to use the flag as a symbol of that disagreement, then hang in UP SIDE DOWN. One's ability to show disrespect can still be voiced loud and clear and for a longer period of time than the few minutes it takes to burn the flag. (I hung it upside down on a few occaisions when that asshat Clinton was president. As much as I hate that man <especially after seeing Blackhawk Down>, I would NEVER have thought of burning it)
Too many have died for the piece of red, white and blue, and for far longer than all of us have been alive. Sorry guys - on this one I come down on the side of the flag and punishing those that would destroy it.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 1
Just to clarify (I'd heard this on O'Reilly this afternoon and did some more research on my own), the 1952 statute in Virginia states that it's only illegal to burn a cross "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." It was specifically targeted at the KKK and other white supremacist groups.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there is about 1 cross burning a week in the US. Most of these take place on private property with the landowner's permission, which was the reason why R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul was brought to the Supreme Court (he was arrested on private property during a white supremacy rally where a cross was burned, but it was private property with the landowner's permission). Incidentally, the court reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled that the cross burning in this case was free speech. The court, however, upheld the Virginia statute in the later Virginia v. Black case.
When it comes to burning flags, there are only 45 documented cases between 1777 and 1989 (when Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional). Most of the flag burnings happened during the Vietnam war. Flag burnings are a rare event in this country.
Now I'm getting back into my opinions (this is not meant as a flame or an attack, so I hope no one takes it as such):
The fact that there is such a push to get this Amendment on the books strikes me as political opportunism than for any actual respect for the flag. Some representatives are likely trying to score points with voters while patriotism (and, unfortunately, jingoism) is still strong. I tend to be a cynical person, but it just seems that with all the other problems our country is facing, trying to amend the constitution to outlaw an event that has already been ruled free speech and one that almost never happens is unnecessary.
I'm a big believer in the idea that the Bill of Rights should never be amended to take rights away. Amendments should only be made to extend our rights.
I also believe that no American has died for the flag, but for what the flag symbolizes; they died to protect this country and their loved ones herein. I have the utmost respect for those who serve our country, and I think restricting one of this country's most basic rights runs counter to the sacrifice so many have made.
I don't think it's my place or the government's place to tell another person how to protest (beyond the obvious: as long as they're not endangering others). I may hate it, and I may be viciously opposed to it, but I will respect their right to their opinion and to protest. As much as I despise the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at schools and soldier's funerals, I will not tell them they cannot protest. Here's a quote from the father of a soldier at who's funeral these moron's protested (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=90258):
He echoes my sentiments exactly. I know my opinion is only that, an opinion, and I won't change anyone's mind. I'm just disturbed that freedoms are being eroded. I'm even more disturbed that it seems that they're being eroded mainly to further politicians' careers instead out of any true concern for our country, its people or its historical principles.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there is about 1 cross burning a week in the US. Most of these take place on private property with the landowner's permission, which was the reason why R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul was brought to the Supreme Court (he was arrested on private property during a white supremacy rally where a cross was burned, but it was private property with the landowner's permission). Incidentally, the court reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled that the cross burning in this case was free speech. The court, however, upheld the Virginia statute in the later Virginia v. Black case.
When it comes to burning flags, there are only 45 documented cases between 1777 and 1989 (when Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional). Most of the flag burnings happened during the Vietnam war. Flag burnings are a rare event in this country.
Now I'm getting back into my opinions (this is not meant as a flame or an attack, so I hope no one takes it as such):
The fact that there is such a push to get this Amendment on the books strikes me as political opportunism than for any actual respect for the flag. Some representatives are likely trying to score points with voters while patriotism (and, unfortunately, jingoism) is still strong. I tend to be a cynical person, but it just seems that with all the other problems our country is facing, trying to amend the constitution to outlaw an event that has already been ruled free speech and one that almost never happens is unnecessary.
I'm a big believer in the idea that the Bill of Rights should never be amended to take rights away. Amendments should only be made to extend our rights.
I also believe that no American has died for the flag, but for what the flag symbolizes; they died to protect this country and their loved ones herein. I have the utmost respect for those who serve our country, and I think restricting one of this country's most basic rights runs counter to the sacrifice so many have made.
I don't think it's my place or the government's place to tell another person how to protest (beyond the obvious: as long as they're not endangering others). I may hate it, and I may be viciously opposed to it, but I will respect their right to their opinion and to protest. As much as I despise the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at schools and soldier's funerals, I will not tell them they cannot protest. Here's a quote from the father of a soldier at who's funeral these moron's protested (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=90258):
He echoes my sentiments exactly. I know my opinion is only that, an opinion, and I won't change anyone's mind. I'm just disturbed that freedoms are being eroded. I'm even more disturbed that it seems that they're being eroded mainly to further politicians' careers instead out of any true concern for our country, its people or its historical principles.
Interesting organization there. It's not about the South. It's not about poverty. And it's not about the law. Seems to me it is mostly about giving Mo Dees a no-heavy-lifting job.
Don't get me wrong, I have no use for racists and white supremacists. But if Mo Dees said the sky was blue, I'd look up very carefully and for a long time.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Yogo, again, well put. Your sentiments seem to mirror my own.
This amendment smells exactly like someone trying to secure a few votes on emotion. We often talk how liberals react on emotion and conservatives on rationale. This is a gut check for all conservatives who proclaim to stand for individual rights, whether you like them or not.
This amendment smells exactly like someone trying to secure a few votes on emotion. We often talk how liberals react on emotion and conservatives on rationale. This is a gut check for all conservatives who proclaim to stand for individual rights, whether you like them or not.
I agree with Tony on this one. As much as I loathe any assclown that burns the flag, and as much as I really hate being on the same side of any issue as the ACLU ("Ass Clown Liberties Union"?), I feel that the First Amendment is sacred. I don't know if any of our founding fathers burned the Union Jack, but I bet they might have seen it as a legitimate expression, and that the Loyalists would have been ready to shoot anybody who did so. The First Amendment is tough because it demands that you cut slack to people you can't stand, to do things you abhor, so that you in turn can freely express your own opinions.
One of the things that I really respect about this board is that it is a model of true conservatism -- people can take opposing positions on volatile issues and still be respectful during the debate. This is also one of the few conservative forums I saw where several people supported the Michael Jackson verdict. Talk about ass clowns: that guy is one of the most repellant creatures walking the earth, and he is probably guilty of the loathesome activities he was charged with. But several folks here respected the jury for ruling on the evidence that was presented to them, rather than trying to "send a message" or ruling on what they just knew had to be the truth. Very tough stuff to treat objectively.
What I hate about the left is that they ARE knee-jerk slaves to their positions. They jettison whatever alleged beliefs they think they have as soon as an issue conflicts with their cockeyed view of the world and makes them uncomfortable.
One of the things that I really respect about this board is that it is a model of true conservatism -- people can take opposing positions on volatile issues and still be respectful during the debate. This is also one of the few conservative forums I saw where several people supported the Michael Jackson verdict. Talk about ass clowns: that guy is one of the most repellant creatures walking the earth, and he is probably guilty of the loathesome activities he was charged with. But several folks here respected the jury for ruling on the evidence that was presented to them, rather than trying to "send a message" or ruling on what they just knew had to be the truth. Very tough stuff to treat objectively.
What I hate about the left is that they ARE knee-jerk slaves to their positions. They jettison whatever alleged beliefs they think they have as soon as an issue conflicts with their cockeyed view of the world and makes them uncomfortable.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
I appreciate you guys expressing my beliefs so much more elequently than I am.
No free lunches. You either agree that the opposition has the same rights to express their opinion or you have no right to express your own.
No free lunches. You either agree that the opposition has the same rights to express their opinion or you have no right to express your own.
YogSothoth said:Just to clarify (I'd heard this on O'Reilly this afternoon and did some more research on my own), the 1952 statute in Virginia states that it's only illegal to burn a cross "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." It was specifically targeted at the KKK and other white supremacist groups.Thanks YogSothoth - I was under the impression that cross burning was illegal. I heard a few folks saying it on the radio. <hang head> I didn't check it out.
Since I erred, (and I just HATE it when that happens), and, since reading the posts after mine, I'm swinging towards Tony's point of view (and others). This IS America - Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. As much as seeing the flag being burnt would cause me to go apeshit, it's the protestors right. Um...can I pee on them???![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
I'm with Tony and Derek. I've worked 33 years to pserve people's rights, including the right to burn the flag.
I'll also take the time to warn against doing it (burning the flag) in front of me. I'll get in a fist fight with anybody over who gets to beat the perp doing the burning.
I'll also take the time to warn against doing it (burning the flag) in front of me. I'll get in a fist fight with anybody over who gets to beat the perp doing the burning.
