Manchin on flag burning: I’m going to beat the hell out of you
All day social media has been burning up over a Tweet from Donald Trump that advocates some sort of punishment for flag burners.
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016
According to The Hill, West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin warned flag burners;
“It’s a First Amendment right, but you do it in front of me, I’m going to beat the hell out of you,” Manchin said, according to a Roll Call reporter.
I often agree with the public side of Senator Manchin – then he goes and votes like a Democrat. He’s up for reelection in 2018 and his prior support for gun control is causing him some distress. He has also hinted that he might switch parties since the Democrats are in the minority again in the Senate.
In this case, he makes a good point, though. If you have the right to express yourself by burning the flag, those who disagree with you might express themselves in a way that distresses you.
Like the other day when Jimmy Janos said that we shouldn’t boo football entertainers who kneel during the National Anthem. Your protest doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Category: I hate hippies
Yep. The public consumption Manchin and the bill-sponsoring, voting Manchin are two different guys. Every time he says something that makes me say, “Bingo!” he does something that makes me say, “Asshole!”
I’m no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I’d want to be sure that there is some type of “provocation” clause in the state assault statutes before actually beating up someone exercising their Constitutional right, regardless of how much of an idiot they are.
The old thing of if speech we disagree with is not protected, then no speech is protected.
I know I would want to apply an educational beatdown, but we do have to look at the full picture.
Hmm. Wonder if that would qualify as “Conservative Civil Disobedience”? (smile)
That would make some leftists heads explode, wouldn’t it?
The Supreme Court (wrongly) ruled it was a form of free speech. Desecrating our flag is not explicitly stated in our constitution as a freedom. Maybe they should try explaining their ruling to my Brothers and Sisters that return home in flag draped coffins.
That’s not the way the constitution works.
Precisely.
Our laws were derived from it.
Actually, it is exactly how the Constitution is designed to work. Read the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the States and the people, in that order, all authority not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution itself.
Under the 10th Amendment, States are free to regulate any conduct not specifically guaranteed as a right by the Constitution. What the SCOTUS has done is to deem flag burning a form of “symbolic speech” – but NOT an undue provocation (“fighting words”) or a clear threat to public safety that would be outside the First Amendment’s protection. The SCOTUS has also ruled the First Amendment binding on the states.
In short, the SCOTUS arbitrated a conflict between different provisions of the US Constitution (1st and 10th Amendments), and decided the 1st Amendment – as interpreted by the SCOTUS – took precedence. IMO, the SCOTUS reached an asinine and inconsistent conclusion in doing so.
Amen and look at some of the communist P.O.S. on the supreme court!
I would simply claim that I was exercising my 1st amendment rights by engaging in “performance art”.
I don’t think the Supreme Court ruled that anyone has a right to burn any flag. The hampshire college students burned a flag that was not their property. That is at least arson.
The case is Texas v. Johnson.
After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not.
Held: Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397
Was Johnson burning his own property? If the flag belongs to the university or an individual can anyone burn it. If the specific charge of desecration of a flag is unconstitutional., charge them with arson or destruction of public property.
It doesn’t matter whether the flag is burned on public or private property any more than saying certain types of speech can only be uttered on private property. The First Amendment works because it is designed to encourage discussion and the exchange of ideas. Forcing speech into one area is not a good thing. You might be able to get away with charges of destruction of public property or theft. I don’t think many prosecutors would take that case because of the cost of the prosecution. Furthermore, the person would most likely pay the cost of the flag and walk. Arson doesn’t work because “arson” is defined as the burning of a dwelling or building. I understand the anger associated with flag burning and those who burn or desecrate the flag. Even if one were to say “it made me so mad that I punched the guy who stepped on the flag,” it is still protected speech and as the speech is not directed at the specific person, the punch can’t fall under the so called “fighting words” doctrine. (There is a second Supreme Court case on this as well. UNITED STATES v. EICHMAN http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/496/310.html ) I don’t want anyone to think I am for desecrating or burning the flag. I AM NOT. I think to military people the flag has a special meaning that some will never understand or try to understand. The flag has always stood for freedom. The flag has always been looked at by those on the sea or foreign lands as a symbol of home. Flag bearers are positions of honor, hopefully given to some of the best people in a unit. Finally, there was a time when “rally ’round the flag boys!” meant something – truly meant something – more than just the cloth blowing in a smokey breeze. If the flag means anything, we shouldn’t allow exceptions to the First Amendment and free speech in order to protect it. We shouldn’t say “the flag stands for freedom” and then try to limit that freedom. Furthermore, in some ways, we become like the SJW’s… Read more »
Thank you, that was ‘well-preached’.
on a somewhat more petty level – law says you can burn a flag, that’s the law. You burn my flag, though, that is my property and you will be charged with theft, arson or anything else I can think up. If you attempt to strike me in the process…game on.
Sorry, but the term ‘arson’ is not limited to buildings or dwellings. If it is related only to structures, then intentionally starting a fire in a wooded or combustible drought-stricken area would not be arson. An example is the current fires going on in Gatlinburg, TN.
Arson is a criminal act, meant to destroy or damage something.
Amen and amen.
Well put, gitarcarver.
I agree with most of what you said gitar, but as a former certified fire investigator, I have to take issue with you on the definition of arson. It may be different depending on the state, but in my state, there are different levels of arson, from 1st class felony down to misdemeanor, and many of those classes do not have anything to do with buildings. As Ex stated, there have been a number of felony arson prosecutions for wildfires in my state. I also believe you misread what Herbert wrote, I don’t believe he was talking about WHERE the flag was burned, i believe he was questioning if Johnson OWNED the flag he burned, since that is what matters in relation to it being arson or not ( you can burn your own property, as long as it does not create a hazard, and you do not file an insurance claim, that’d be a whole ‘nother crime). sorry if that was long winded.
The nine old pussies on the Potomac erred both in fact and law. In that case the first amendment didn’t apply, but the 10th surely did.
Accidentally hit “report” while trying to scroll down on my iPhone. Apologies.
AND THEFT!
SERE taught me, among other charming things, the Flag in the hands of the enemy is a rag. These idiots want to go and burn a piece of cloth? More power to the bunch of losers.
Now try to burn the one I fly.
Others may have a different opinion, of course. Caution NWS language.
Looks like the cops saved that maggot’s ass.
When I went through SERE, the instructors told us we were NOT to salute the flag when it went up at the end of the camp session.
FUCK them! After all the bullshit I went through that week, I snapped to as soon as it started going up.
I was amazed that some of my classmates told me to stop cause the instructors said we couldn’t.
FUCK them too…twice.
Yeah, it’s a piece of cloth, and I would let the scumbags burn it, but I have a lonnnnng memory. And paybacks are a bitch.
If the scum wants to burn something, burn their birth certificates..if they even have one!
SERE. In October 1974, on the last day of POW training, we were formed up with the camp’s PDR flag pole behind us. The camp commander said, “I will make you ALL salute OUR flag.” We each thought “Fuck you, you commie bastard.”
Then, after we were commanded “about face” …. not a dry eye in formation.
They had replaced the PDR flag with Old Glory.
I haven’t been the same ever since.
“Punishment for flag desecration itself is outlawed by the Constitution….” so says CNN. The Constitution does no such thing. What the Constitution’s 1st Amendment does, in relevant part, is prohibit the federal gov’t from abridging our freedom of speech. Supreme Court decisions have extended that prohibition to state governments and have construed speech to include symbolic speech, including desecrating Old Glory. In short, burning Old Glory is, according to the Supremes, protected speech. That holding has no impact upon state laws and local ordinances regarding burning material of any sort. Thus, depending upon the state and city, a flag burner could be charged with violating burning laws or, if the flag was stolen, theft, malicious burning and whatever else a prosecutor can come up with. What it is not is arson, which, under common law, must be a dwelling place, but under statutory law may be a dumpster or a store or whatever the statute specifies. Any law that purports to criminalize flag burning is unconstitutional. (Now I’m going to hit “post comment” and probably see that Hondo responded similarly several minutes ago!)
What about the carbon emissions from burning a flag, or hazardous chemicals?
I have no issue with flag burning as protected speech, but for those that do, the answer seems elegantly simple: Legislate that all US Flags manufactured in the USA must be made out of fire retardant materials. Boom. Problem solved.
THAT is a scream.
Flag burning is a action not a speech.Also certain states have what is called fighting words. So by SCOTUS ruling here is your ass beating . Joe
GDC, as an alternative, how about they’re made extremely flammable, that way when some POS touches a match to it, it goes up so fast, it take the fleabag with it…just a thought…
Unfortunately, many of the flags I’ve come across the last few years have been Made in China…
It is merely a piece of cloth and unless one is endangering the public, or other’s personal property. Go ahead burn it, it is your constitutional “right”. It is also is my personal constitutional right to oblique kick your knee and put my elbow on your jawline. Karmic Scales of Justice are a bitch.
Go to Weasel Zippers 3rd story about Tufts Uni restricting FREE SPEECH at the Uni. . This really makes me mad. The student gov passed this SHIT . Joe
Well, considering that Tufts is one of the better universities on this planet, I was a bit surprised that it was an issue, but apparently the students either don’t understand the university’s policy, or they are not very bright at all.
Here’s the story: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30122/
There are a couple of related articles linked to that one.
The problem as I see it is that these students are semiliterate at best, evidenced by the constant misuse of ‘like’ in almost every sentence by one of them.
It appears that Tufts’ administration, e.g., University president and the Dean of Students posted a vaguely-worded policy statement that gives them leeway in regard to handling disputes and discord by the student body. And the fact that the student ‘government’ dislikes the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause means that they really have no understanding of its meaning, or the US Constitution in toto, either.
Well, Hondo must be busy.
I was, actually. (smile)
Nothing much to add; you covered the issue probably better than I would have.
But I’ve always wondered why public flag burning didn’t qualify as symbolic “fighting words” – or, if a flag burining induced a violent response, as unlawful incitement to violence.
Generally speaking, “fighting words” must be addressed specifically to an individual.
TheFIRE.org (ironic, given the topic of flag burning) gives a great summary of “fighting words.”
https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/
“Incitement to violence” doesn’t work as a charge either as there is no “incitement” being made by flag burning. For “incitement” to work, you’d have to have the burner come up to you and say to your face “go do this illegal act!”
A reaction to protected speech, no matter how hateful the speech may be, is not “incitement.”
See: Brandenburg v. Ohio. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444)
Also, remember the case NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA v. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE which addresses the point of whether hateful, vile speech is protected. (It is.)
I am fully aware of all of that, gitarcarver. What I am wondering is how the SCOTUS managed to come to those asinine decisions.
What the SCOTUS has done is to say that public symbolic speech designed specifically to provoke violent reaction, and known to be likely to do so, does NOT qualify as “fighting words” or an incitement to violence when its burning the US flag. Yet by judicial fiat, other speech so designed or with similar effect does qualify. Go figure.
Seeing the US flag burned is no less offensive to a veteran than someone using a racial slur in the presence of and directed to a member of a racial minority; it is also a personal affront to someone who has served. It’s the nonverbal equivalent of telling them, to their face, “Eff you and the country you fought to defend.”
Using racial epithets towards a member of a minority group is considered “fighting words”. Flag burning is no less offensive towards veterans as a group, and should be legally considered the same.
As I noted below, Starr didn’t even raise the issue of fighting words in his arguments for the government before the court-Scalia brought it up in his questions to Kunstler. The justices are free to consider any aspect they like in a decision, but it can’t help if the advocate for the side of restricting the action doesn’t even bring the particular issue up in making his case.
What the SCOTUS has done is to say that public symbolic speech designed specifically to provoke violent reaction, and known to be likely to do so, does NOT qualify as “fighting words” or an incitement to violence when its burning the US flag. One reason would be that it gives the hearer / listener a veto over the speech itself and puts the government in the position of deciding what is “offensive,” “fighting words,” etc. The position would be that military recruiters would not be allowed on public campuses or even on the streets because someone finds the military “offensive” to the point of “fighting words.” Under what you propose, a member of the clergy speaking against homosexuality would be arrested because his condemnation of LGBT’s would be considered “fighting words.” (And on a side note, courts are holding that racial epitaphs are not fighting words.) Some people considered Trump’s speeches vile and hateful. There was even the famous (on infamous) speech where Trump said about a protester / heckler something along the lines of “in the old days, that person would be taken out and beat on.” Many people wanted that to be “incitement to violence,” but it’s not. I am against the idea of a “heckler’s veto” or the idea that someone can be offended by a political act to the point where they can attack someone. Finally, we both find the flag burning wrong and on some level offensive. You seem to find it offensive to the point of “fighting words” and “incitement” (which by definition it cannot be.) I don’t find the flag burning to be “fighting words.” Now what? Is your offensiveness given more weight than mine? (Remember, the one time standard was that a “normal, reasonable person” would be provoked to violence by the speech.) Are you more “normal” than I? Or am I more “normal” than you? Do you really want a court to decide who is normal and reasonable and who is not? Do you really want a court deciding that? I know that I don’t. I don’t want some conservative court… Read more »
It is a action not speech ! Whatever means to stop the burning so be it .
You miss my point entirely. Get down off your “freedom of speech” high horse and think logically. My objection is largely that the SCOTUS’ decision re: flag burning makes a distinction between types of speech that are likely to produce an immediate violent reaction, and is inconsistent with its previous decisions on the matter. “Fighting words” and speech inciting violence or riot lacks constitutional protection. Flag burning is no less likely to elicit a violent response than racial epithets. Yet one is protected speech, and the other is not. That is both logically inconsistent and obviously absurd. The SCOTUS has already ruled that certain speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment. But they’ve done so in an inconsistent, and IMO asinine manner. Logically, “fighting words” should encompass all speech that would provoke a violent response in the proverbial “reasonable man” – and thus should not be protected. Or the category should not exist. Further, the First Amendment is otherwise not absolute even when “fighting words” are removed from the discussion. The courts have ruled that the 1st Amendment does not trump valid security classification; does not trump a valid “gag order” issued by a court; and does not protect other speech that poses a risk to public health and safety (incitement to riot, the classic “yelling ‘fire’ in a theater” ) or national security. So we already have the courts deciding what is – and what is not – protected free speech. What I want is for the courts to freaking be consistent in what types of speech they determine are outside the protection of the 1st Amendment. So far, they’ve been inconsistent as hell. They seem to be “making it up as they go.” IMO, flag burning – like many other forms of prohibited speech – has a high likelihood of causing an immediate violent reaction and/or a situation causing imminent danger to public safety. It therefore in fact should be regarded as a form of nonverbal “fighting words”, outside the protection of the 1st Amendment, and subject to valid legal sanction. Or the SCOTUS should scrap the… Read more »
They already did that when giving homosexuals a right that no one else possesses – marriage. No one else is guaranteed the right to marry explicitly. So normal and such is already being determined by a court lacking in the ability to rational decision making.
There sure as hell IS incitment, especially if one is an arsonist! lol
In the chapter on the Supreme Court in his hilariously excelllent book “A Parliament of Whores”, PJ O’Rourke describes the exchange between the justices and the late lefty attorney William Kunstler over that very issue (Scalia raised the point about “fighting words”). Apparently the justices decided that flag burning didn’t qualify (both Kunstler’s and Solicitor General Ken Starr’s arguments before the court are made to look quite foolish in the chapter).
Did ya’ll catch the whole Veterans for Kaepernick hashtag a few months ago? I loved seeing a half dozen or so vets (retweeted en masse by BLM activists to appear as a significant movement) saying they deployed for Kaepernick’s right to kneel during the National Anthem.
Funny. I seem to recall deploying in support of my own right to call people like that an asshole. “Veteran”.
I would be curious to see how many of those Veterans had Honorable Discharges.
I’d be curious to find out how many were real veterans.
Or were even VETERANS?
They are certainly aware of the provocative message that the act communicates. Else, why do it? Yet, often, the authors of that message seem genuinly surprised, even fearful of the response.
From an unlearned mind I’d like to share an observation. Indeed, it is an elementary assessment but do with it as you please. A constitutional protection is not the same thing as those ubiquitous sensory free safe-zones.
I don’t know. Somebody hep me here?
Book burnings like Hitler used to do.
You may not remember this, but it so happens that in 1965, when John Lennon made the unfortunate remark that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, he was referring to attendance at Beatles’ concerts vs. attendance at churches in general. This immediately created a firestorm of protest in the evangelical communities, and they decided to burn the Beatles’ albums as a protest. Which they did. There was a large photo of one of those bonfires in Life Magazine.
The unfortunate side effects of this were that when you burn LPs, they’re made of vinyl, and burning them releases toxic gases into the atmosphere, never mind the smoke and possibility of sparks and exploding records. I always hoped those album burners got a snootful and are now suffering the long-term effects of da stoopid.
The other side effect was that by buying Beatles’ albums to burn them, they only added cash to the revenues the Beatles took in.
I went to their concert in Chicago at the International Amphitheater and had a real good time.
He didn’t mean he would simply beat them. No.
He meant, he would assist in extinguishing the flames, with the face of the protester….repeatedly.
I believe any actions such as flag burning, blocking traffic and raising hell in public are already covered under “disturbing the peace”
It’s a catch all that our legal system needs to give our officers a right to interpret on the spot.
Its usually just a misdemeanor and a small fine, perhaps a few hours in the hoosescow,
No big deal about free speech or the flag, just giving assholes the minimal attention they deserve and stopping the shitbaggery.
Tell the media to stay home or get their asses kicked! this is all for attention, the leeches crave some kind of attention to make their worthless little shytty lives amount to something!
Some speech isn’t protected by the first amendment. For example you can’t yell “fire!”in a crowded movie theater and then claim freedom of speech. Similarly, burning the US flag shouldn’t be protected speech.
Notaleg,
Why, in the name of everything profane and sacred, does everyone insist and persist in misquoting the “can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater”?
Not going to go into full quote mode (on my cell phone), and to keep it brief to be easily remembered, but it’s “can’t yell “fire” FALSELY in a crowded theater”. There. Fixed it for ya. Yer welcome.
Don’t know why, but this is a pet peeve that irritates me no end whenever I see or hear it.
Yes. But is it okay to yell “MOVIE!” in a crowded firehouse?
Steve Martin still kills me.
Actually, the Supreme Court backed way off that standard. Certainly one can yell “fire!” in a crowded theater if there is an actual fire in a crowded theater.
The problem is that Justice Holmes’ line is used to censor ideas which is anathema to the First Amendment and the idea of freedom.
See here for more discussion on the cases and case law:
https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
If I see anyone getting beat up, I know what I’m going to do. I’m going to do everything I can to help the poor bastard getting beat up. No way I’m going to stand idly by and watch someone get beat into a goddamn coma.
Depends on who is getting beat up! If its a media type, I would cheer, if its a flag burner, I would help the beater, if its a politician, I would use the boots ha ha…..
That piece of libturd shit that said he did like America. Then peddle your sorry ass to a country you like, BUT GET OUT OF MINE.
I would think that this falls under the adage “actions have consequences”… you burn the flag around people that respect it, and they get upset about it, then you deserve what’s coming your way.
Authoritarian personalities hate the first amendment.
Not surprised so many of you would beat up a flag burner just as you would love the state to commit violence on people that hold a faith you do not like.
Hi Lars! Honed up on your chart comprehension yet? Since, you know, on a previous visit you condescended to tell us how utterly and completely wrong we were about an issue (you even had proof!) and then ended up looking like an ass.
Oh, let me. Shut up, Generalissimo Assholio.
Lars, don’t you need to plan your trip to Cuba to say goodbye to your dead boyfriend?
Fuck off, shitbag.
damn, son, how did you even get into grammar school? You LIKE having people tell you you’re an asshole…is that some weird kind of sexual kink? You sure as hell are no more intellectually gifted than most f the posters, your logic is incredibly flawed, your abilities to debate seriously are challenged to say the least, your arguments are specious repetition and every time you show up you just draw more abuse. Like the old joke about the bear says…you’re not here for the hunting.
Dang. Lars woke up semi-sober.
I’m sure that has changed by now.
Just wait, after he’s had his 20th expresso enema of the morning, he’ll be beating on the keyboard real hard and calling us facist pigs…
Coming from someone who claims to have recently graduated from one of the most PC universities in the nation – one who once refused to let it’s OWN CHANCELLOR speak to students by shouting him down – that’s rich.
Wanna talk about UC’s speech code, Poodle – and how it promotes free exchange of differing ideas? Or how UCB students and faculty treat anyone who supports Israel?
Oh, and it’s not a new issue. As this article from a decade ago shows, academia – and specifically, UCB – has a long tradition of intolerance for free speech that deviates from the current “approved and correct” political point-of-view.
“would love the state to commit violence on people that hold a faith you do not like.”
What faith would that be zika-commie?
Faith in the Yankees?
Faith in global warming?
Faith in super-glue?
You may think that the people you are supporting will spare you, they wont.
Cruise on down to the Cesar E. Chavez Student Center and burn an ISIS flag, dare you.
And what have your SJW buddies done across the nation since Trump was elected POTUS? Haven’t they done some “violence”… I’ve seen it in Portland and other areas, including Oakland (not too far from Bazerkley). Or is that one of those “social engineering experiments” that you pinko kommies love to implement on people.
Your problems Kommisar Poodleditski Larsie-poo is you can’t deal with reality outside of the “hallowed halls” of Bezerkley. So, hy don’t you go finish your tofu Grape Nuts and non-GMO, free trade, lactose free, triple shot decaf, soy latte and go work a job (maybe as a box boy or a custodian/janitor) and be a constructive member of society… or is that “too hard” for you to do.
BTW – I’d let the crowd beat the snot out of the flag burner… I’d call the paramedics to let them pick up what’s left of them. Plus, I’ve heard that it take a week to get the stank of hippy/kommie our of my shoes/clothes/hair.
Hey fuck-wit…
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/
Less talking, more thinking. It would do you good.
Eat a dick. [/obligatory]
Oh, yeah – Tiananmen Square. Most of those 1,000 deaths were the result of executions by the Communist Chinese government. Their families were billed for the costs of those executions, right down to the bullets fired.
Lars doesn’t see the problem with that.
It’s a bug, not a fetcher of socialism/communism….
Lars is probably at the local co-op getting “bag o’ dicks” at a 2 for 1 deal. Supposedly they are “non-GMO, free range, fair trade, organic” dicks…
AHhhahaha…. excellent.
HEY ya fuck-baced booger-eatin’ candyassed dildoheaded twinkle-toed pisspants fuckwit, where have you been lately, mourning Castro or taking part in shit-for-brained antics like this “protest”? YES, it was at your screwel, UC Berserkely, heavily populated by candyassed shit-for-brained Howling SJW Flower Monkeys:
Wow. Lotsa ‘beat the hell out of you’ when there’s a very simple solution.
BURN THE FRAKKIN’ RAINBOW FLAG, YOU IDIOTS.
And while you’re at it, throw pictures of their freak show ‘heroes’ and the Pride Parades onto the flames.
Make sure you announce it everywhere, have plenty of fire extinguishers standing by to spray on the freaks and SJW howler monkeys, make a bunch of videos and broadcast them on the ‘net.
How about using some trigger words, too?
How simple is that? You’re all too easy to piss off, y’know. Those midget-brains know what buttons to push to piss you off. They do it all the time.
Eye for an eye – that sort of thing.
I was thinking close to that. If you’re going to attend a flag burning rally, bring a fire extinguisher. A big one. Maybe a 20 pounder. Maybe more than one.
When the flag is lit, spray the flag, AND the protester. Foam, CO2, fog, whatever (halon?). Be sure to douse that protester good.
After all, you’re just doing your civic duty to prevent fires and con-flag-rations (see what I did there?)
hehehehe
Gotta do your part to save the environment from toxic gases… and protect the ruby throated sap-sucker.
isn’t it funny how the SJW’s are screaming about protecting the environment, but they are the ones that trash out the areas they use for their “protests”?
I recommend a Class ABC Dry Chemical extinguisher, not only will the DC powder element get all over the stank-ass SJW Howling Flower Monkeys, it’s VERY irritating to the eyes, nose and windpipe. I know that myself from having to use one on a fire indoors, it burned almost as bad as the Gas Chamber in Basic after I unmasked. Maybe the proper response to LE types if you’re questioned why afterward, maybe something like “Dry conditions today, and I was very concerned for everyone’s safety.” Maybe next we’ll hear the SJW Howler Monkeys call for a ban on fire extinguishers because we have Fire Departments?
If memory serves me, there is a video of some protestor over in the middle east setting himself on fire when he tried to burn a US flag.
We therefore have evidence that a flag burner is a very real danger to their own safety, and the ABC Dry Chemical extinguisher was applied for their own protection.
Well, yes, Graybeard, and unless the flag to be burnt is made of cotton, it may give off toxic gases, too. Remember the report of one flag burner protesting that odd, previously unknown video, by burning a US flag, and the fumes from it nearly asphyxiated him?
I cherish that memory. 🙂 Naughty me.
It brings tears to my eyes to think of those
poor oppressed SJWsidiots getting payback like that.Tears of laughter.
I guess we’re both naughty, Ex-PH2.
I’m ALL FOR burning a “fag flag” in the presence of howling SJW Flower Monkeys, I’d do that right after I got done burning an ISIS flag. If my memory serves me right, some SJW Flower Monkeys tried to introduce a bill making the burning of a rainbow flag a crime.
http://nationalreport.net/gays-introduce-rainbow-flag-desecration-bill/
Dudes and dudettes, just ignore Lars. You are probably the only attention he gets, and you stoke his fires. Just say something complimentary or laudatory and carry on when he posts.
Something that no one has adequately explained to me is how one gets to the conclusion that burning something, anything, is an expression rather than an action. I know, I know – lefties often see talking about something as equivalent with doing something, but if burning something is protected expression, could not beating someone for their opinions also be protected expression? I simply don’t see either action as Constitutionally protected. Thoughts and words, certainly, but not doing something which potentially could cause physical harm to others. Like setting anything on fire in a crowd.
There used to be an art form called ‘tableaux’, which were popular for a while at 19th century garden parties.
They were artistic displays with live animals and people dressed as characters from history, mythology or fairytales. It would be like a Nativity scene using live people and a real cow and donkey.
It’s occasionally done now, but you have to get a permit for it. The right of peaceful assembly is constitutionally protected. It goes on at public meetings all the time.
However, doing something intended to cause damage, such as setting fire to stuff in a public place or blocking traffic on a busy highway doesn’t really fit that rule, in my humble opinion. But that’s just how I see it.
Burning the American flag = Free Speech.
Displaying the Confederate flag = Hate Speech.
I still don’t get it….
And you may have noticed that there are no brownie points for those of us who do neither and find both “expressions” distasteful. We are still whatever-phobic, according to whoever is the arbiter of those titles this week.
Exactly. Funny how one person’s “free speech” is protected but for others it’s not.
So much for “blind justice”.
Once again, the real culprit here is the liberal media. If they would ignore these flag-burning demonstrations and not give these lefty morons the free publicity they seek, such protests would cease to happen for the most part. Both the burners and the media are HOPING some patriot will be incited to violence because that will guarantee a minute or two on the evening news and widespread coverage on the Web.
By attending such events, we who revere the flag of a symbol of our nation, also play into the hands of the protestors and the media for the reason cited above. If we stay the hell away from all such protests, they will fade away. If there are no outraged patriots yelling and threatening to visit violence upon the flag-burners, a protest quickly becomes a non-news, failed event.
I know it’s hard, but the best solution is to simply ignore such deliberate provocation and let it die of its own inconsequence.
“we who revere the flag (as) a symbol of our nation”
Many winters ago, my parents hosted the daughter of a German friend so she could practice her English by immersion.
One comment she made was about the frequency of seeing the National Colors (and the Texas Colors) flying everywhere.
When my youngest brother went to visit her family in West Germany, he noticed that the German colors (and Bavarian colors) were everywhere.
For each one, their National Colors made them feel at home and that things were right. The other colors reminded them that they were not at home.
I strongly suspect that for most of these flag desecrators, they have never been where the freedoms we enjoy here are missing – and do not know what they have.
That is to say that flag desecrators are a bunch of ignorant morons. Speaking in all kindness, of course.
I think it’s a safe bet that at least 99.999% of those booger-eating pisspants bedwetting shtiball dildoheads have NEVER been somewhere where they were at risk of coming home in a coffin draped with the U.S. Flag.
I know I would bet that you are correct.
Well, don’t you think it’s high time they were given the pleasure of that experience? Something memorable. A trip to Venezuela, perhaps?
Drop them in the Estato de Apure and let them walk out.
Yeah, Venezuela would be one good choice and I’d like to also suggest North Korea, Cuba and China as well. I’d love to invent not just a Time Machine but a “Time and Place Machine” with which i could teleport them to say, the USSR, East Germany or anywhere in the Warsaw Pact Nations during the 1950s for a one month period and see if they want to say the USA is so bad afterward IF THEY SURVIVED.
When I a young LT back in 77, the National Socialist Party of America (read Nazis) applied for a permit to parade through Skokie IL. Of note is that Skokie had the highest number of Holocaust survivors of any US city, about 1 out of 6. The NSPA with the help of the ACLU pursued this attempt to the Supreme Court, where they won based on the first amendment. As repugnant as I found that decision, I felt it was the right one.
I am far more willing to withstand verbiage and symbols I find abhorrent than I am willing to allow any person or entity decide what speech is acceptable or permissible. Perhaps the SJWs could take a page from that book, but I doubt it.
You have the right to burn the flag if it is your property and your doing so does not endanger others (I,m a Tennessee resident and we don,t like open flames at this point). If it’s my flag or property, they might find themselves on their third point of contact. Don,t trifle with old veterans. We are underestimated and crafty.
Maybe greet them something like THIS? I would.
I read through the cmts and found some interesting thoughts and some revealing questions. I am personally heartened to see that pronouncements (new or old) by the Supreme Court are being met with rebuttal, resistance, and doubt. That a very small group of highly educated lawyers can see what is not to be seen in the Constitution and determine, for instance, that what is written in the Constitution means more than it reads, is truly other worldly. Why is it that a prohibition written to apply solely to the national government applies to the states? Because the Supreme Court said so. There is no additional explanation. Why are certain words fighting words? Same answer. I can list 100 items w/o pause that have their alpha and omega in a small group of lawyers. First on that list would be “tax” called obamacare, followed closely by the discovery of the fundamental right to marriage, irrespective of gender. The power the justices wield as a group is immense and has grown tremendously, especially over the past 70 years or so. They meet in secret. They serve for life. They clearly have an agenda. And that agenda is served by reading into the Constitution that which is not there and by overlooking that which is.
But, you know, were we to employ the democrat model, and ignore their rulings, there is absolutely nothing they could do about it. The supremes have absolutely no enforcement authority.
Honestly, the people we need on the supreme court need to be as apolitical as we can make them. I know there are some out there, but they rarely get to the bench.
I stand with Hillary. She also co-sponsered the Bill to Outlaw Flag Burning
Comrade Poodledik….Been wondering what liberal extreme it would take to bring you back into the fold again. Please explain something. How can you have served in the United States of America Armed Services, worn the uniform, presumably served to defend this great country…and yet defend anyone burning the American flag? You got no shame boy?
Comrade Dickless? Shame? That’s a rhetorical question, right?
T O W…..Probably more along the lines of an oxymoron. When will he interrupt the crickets?
“I’m going to beat the hell out of you…” Unless someone who believes in the first amendment beats the crap out of you first, a**hole.