Reno Vet Cuts Down Mexican Flag Flown Above American Flag

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: alien42
who cares?

Im sure a Vet would.

and a vet is more american than i am?

Yes.

Umm no. I am a vet and I am no more American than any other citizen of this country.

 

[ballmode]

I salute the vets

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: destrekor
oh come on. I fully support the proper freedoms, and understand everything I have said is not technically able to stand in a court. I know they are not rational, so don't confuse me with someone who is mindless and moronic. I have many things trapped in my mind and this is probably one of the things that should have stayed trapped.
I probably shouldn't attempt to rationalize what I have said either, it's not worth the effort nor will it ever appear rational to people who want to interpret the laws the way they currently have.

But let me just say this: the flag code deserves it's own protection, and should not be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abused.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure it says peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech and freedom of press. It takes some stretching through rather interesting interpretations to read freedom of any actions desirable.
How the hell did the courts ever rule in favor of those that have chosen to not abide by the Flag Code and desecrate The Colors? Bullshit if you ask me. Thus how I say the 1st Amendment has been abused, and that blame lies on some sketchy lawyers that have defended certain people and have gotten cases taken to the Supreme Court. How the Supreme Court ever ruled in favor of the 'protesters', who knows. Maybe I need to study law a little more, and I make no claims of being a law student or one who knows all the intricacies of law.
So, instead of bashing me if I have misinterpreted everything here, how about peacefully correcting me?

And why does proper flag conduct deserve it's own code? The very people that you so highly revere didn't determine that the flag needs it's own protection. They left the Amendments open so that it is widely applicable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression. Hanging a flag whichever way you want to is covered under freedom of expression. It doesn't make any difference if someone is offended by another's expression. The whole point of that amendment is that unpopular sentiments are protected because the oppression of those basic rights is what leads to dictators.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
I've never said it's law. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. And who cares if it's vigilante justice? Sure, no law was broken, however, the store owner's actions' were severely disrespectful to the country he chooses to live in. If you are going to be a citizen, have respect for the history of The Colors and what they represent.
What I absolutely hate about protesters who burn the flag or generally disrespect it, are they are fvcking morons in that they don't see the irony of any statement they are trying to make with the flag. Guess what? You couldn't do that to The Colors if not for the history of them and those who have sacrificed themselves throughout history to uphold the beliefs of them. So, by disrespecting The Colors, you are being disrespectful to the history of this country.
I support the vet and his 'vigilante justice', because he has equal right to restore respect.
Don't live here if you are going to disrespect the history and purpose of The Colors. And no, that's not a stab directed only to Mexican immigrants, but to all citizens who choose to desecrate and disrespect the flag.

The point is that because it's not a law, what the store owner did was not appropriate. You're implication that he had the right to do what he did implies that he was upholding some law through freedom of speech. The fact that he's disrespecting our country. You have every right to support him but it's a naive belief that one has the right to impose their beliefs on another.

The irony in the statement isn't in flag burning. The fact that this country's forefathers fought so tirelessly for the guarantees afforded to us by the ideals that they fought for and displayed in the Constitution is what's important, not The Colors. It would be disrespectful to this country if you choose not to use vigilante justice in enforcing whats right. It's disrespectful to this country if you can't even acknowledge the first amendment in the Constitution. It's disrespectful to this country that one would think that the greatness of this country not to understand that our flag represents the constituion and our ideals and the sacrafice of all who have died for our rights. It would, thus, be disrespectful to this country if someone was so afraid of retribution from others that they couldn't even speak their minds, without being called a racist and a bigot.

The Colors does infact equate to the ideals of this country. The ideals equate to the flag..

Fixed.

thank you.
The Colors are highly representative of the ideals of this country, and to say they do not go hand in hand is moronic. Why then, does the Flag Code even exist? To pay respect to those who have died for the ideals of this country, expressed through The Colors.
If you want to believe I am disrespecting those who have fought and died for the ideals of this country, then again, I must again state that is moronic. I have nothing against you as a person and am not implying you are moronic, but be careful with your choice of words. I have never, and will never, disrespected those who have sacrificed themselves before for this great land.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: thepd7
Oh yeah I forgot about the 1st amendment that let's me do/say anything I want.

No one ever said that. Just because you are an idiot and don't understand things doesn't mean you should engage in hilarious hyperbole in an attempt to prove a point.

The First Amendment is limited. Just not in relation to this event.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: thepd7
Oh yeah I forgot about the 1st amendment that let's me do/say anything I want.

Well I am off to the elementary school to go scream at kids to fuck themselves, cops can't tell me not to because I have freedom of speech from the first amendment!

Yet another amazing display of poorly formed logic. How do you even come to the conclusion that going to a school and yelling obscenities is the equivalent of a person flying a flag incorrectly and not illegally on private property.

worse things have been protected under the 1st Amendment and specifically the Freedom of Speech. It's taken to damned literally and as I have said, is abused greatly. Read my post above.

This is a good read on some views for protecting the wide application of the First Amendment.

Flag Amendment Debate

 

[Xylitol]

I respect the vet and although he's gonna be charged with something, I hope the judge goes easy on him since he was trying to do
what was right without hurting anyone

I would've done the same thing except I don't have a knife

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
I've never said it's law. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. And who cares if it's vigilante justice? Sure, no law was broken, however, the store owner's actions' were severely disrespectful to the country he chooses to live in. If you are going to be a citizen, have respect for the history of The Colors and what they represent.
What I absolutely hate about protesters who burn the flag or generally disrespect it, are they are fvcking morons in that they don't see the irony of any statement they are trying to make with the flag. Guess what? You couldn't do that to The Colors if not for the history of them and those who have sacrificed themselves throughout history to uphold the beliefs of them. So, by disrespecting The Colors, you are being disrespectful to the history of this country.
I support the vet and his 'vigilante justice', because he has equal right to restore respect.
Don't live here if you are going to disrespect the history and purpose of The Colors. And no, that's not a stab directed only to Mexican immigrants, but to all citizens who choose to desecrate and disrespect the flag.

The point is that because it's not a law, what the store owner did was not appropriate. You're implication that he had the right to do what he did implies that he was upholding some law through freedom of speech. The fact that he's disrespecting our country. You have every right to support him but it's a naive belief that one has the right to impose their beliefs on another.

The irony in the statement isn't in flag burning. The fact that this country's forefathers fought so tirelessly for the guarantees afforded to us by the ideals that they fought for and displayed in the Constitution is what's important, not The Colors. It would be disrespectful to this country if you choose not to use vigilante justice in enforcing whats right. It's disrespectful to this country if you can't even acknowledge the first amendment in the Constitution. It's disrespectful to this country that one would think that the greatness of this country not to understand that our flag represents the constitution and our ideals and the sacrifice of all who have died for our rights. It would, thus, be disrespectful to this country if someone was so afraid of retribution from others that they couldn't even speak their minds, without being called a racist and a bigot.

The Colors does infact equate to the ideals of this country. The ideals equate to the flag..

Fixed.

Actually, it's a symbolic representation of ideals and not the ideals themselves. Even the burning of the ideals is protected. You are not guaranteed freedom from being offended. Why would you support the symbol of the ideals and not the ideals themselves?

Originally posted by: destrekor
thank you.
The Colors are highly representative of the ideals of this country, and to say they do not go hand in hand is moronic. Why then, does the Flag Code even exist? To pay respect to those who have died for the ideals of this country, expressed through The Colors.
If you want to believe I am disrespecting those who have fought and died for the ideals of this country, then again, I must again state that is moronic. I have nothing against you as a person and am not implying you are moronic, but be careful with your choice of words. I have never, and will never, disrespected those who have sacrificed themselves before for this great land.

Once again, why would you rather support the respect of a symbol of ideals instead of the ideals themselves?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
I respect the vet and although he's gonna be charged with something, I hope the judge goes easy on him since he was trying to do
what was right without hurting anyone

I would've done the same thing except I don't have a knife

What was right about what he did? Just from the posts on this forum it should show that what is "right" seems to be highly relative to your viewpoints. Would it be right for a group of people to go to the veteran's residence and exact some more vigilante justice?

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: dainthomas
I wonder if the Reno sheriff's department was called to the scene.

Me too, I wonder what types of fines or jail time you get for putting up another nations flag above the US flag.

obviously that went right over your head

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
oh come on. I fully support the proper freedoms, and understand everything I have said is not technically able to stand in a court. I know they are not rational, so don't confuse me with someone who is mindless and moronic. I have many things trapped in my mind and this is probably one of the things that should have stayed trapped.
I probably shouldn't attempt to rationalize what I have said either, it's not worth the effort nor will it ever appear rational to people who want to interpret the laws the way they currently have.

But let me just say this: the flag code deserves it's own protection, and should not be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abused.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure it says peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech and freedom of press. It takes some stretching through rather interesting interpretations to read freedom of any actions desirable.
How the hell did the courts ever rule in favor of those that have chosen to not abide by the Flag Code and desecrate The Colors? Bullshit if you ask me. Thus how I say the 1st Amendment has been abused, and that blame lies on some sketchy lawyers that have defended certain people and have gotten cases taken to the Supreme Court. How the Supreme Court ever ruled in favor of the 'protesters', who knows. Maybe I need to study law a little more, and I make no claims of being a law student or one who knows all the intricacies of law.
So, instead of bashing me if I have misinterpreted everything here, how about peacefully correcting me?

And why does proper flag conduct deserve it's own code? The very people that you so highly revere didn't determine that the flag needs it's own protection. They left the Amendments open so that it is widely applicable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression. Hanging a flag whichever way you want to is covered under freedom of expression. It doesn't make any difference if someone is offended by another's expression. The whole point of that amendment is that unpopular sentiments are protected because the oppression of those basic rights is what leads to dictators.

you apparently misunderstand me, as I am far from favoring the removal of the basic rights afforded all citizens of this land. HOWEVER, I dare say, freedom of expression through actions is something you have to interpret, as it is not listed. I fully agree all should have the ability to peacefully protest, to say nearly whatever they want, and print nearly anything they want... but expression beyond those means, the only one obviously being left, through actions, was left out of that list. There are only three things a human can do to express oneself: write, talk, or act. Why would two things be listed as protected freedoms, but not the third? These are things that must be interpreted, and if only our forefathers were still around to shed light on this subject.

Oh, and an amendment has been drafted but has never been passed: The Flag Desecration Amendment.

I personally think the authors left that third method of expression out, as they probably felt it could open up the First Amendment to abuse through people's actions that would and should normally be criminal and punishable.
You tread a fine line when you start interpreting specific things that were not originally there. Who is to say what someone else interprets is wrong but your interpretation is right? This is why there should be no interpretations, and live by what is presented in the document itself. Don't add things that are not there, as then you are created law without proper authorization.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789
I thought you meant Vetrinarian.


Prediction - This thread will turn into a P & N thread about immigration.

I would hope it turns into a discussion about the fact that we should have respect for Hispanic culture, but they should also respect the culture/rules in the country in which they are residing. I think people are afraid to stand up like Mr. Brossard did for fear of being called a bigot or a racist when in reality he displayed no such behavior.

I'd be more afraid to stand up like Mr. Brossard did for fear of being arrested for theft and maybe a few other charges.


I think that putting your hope aside, we both know what the thread will turn into.

Vindication


YAMPNOTT

 

[BAMAVOO]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs
The store owner was an idiot for flying the Mexican flag above the American flag. He had to realize how much hatred that would bring his way.

But on the other hand, the flag code is violated ALL THE TIME, even by supposedly patriotic people who fly their flags in front of their houses in the rain or at night unilluminated. Businesses violate the flag code ALL THE TIME by using flags in advertisements.

This isn't about the flag code.

how is it NOT about the flag code? There are certain portions of the flag code, that when violated, do not present much of an issue, even for veterans. Such as not lighting up the flag at night, flying the flag when it is beginning to tear due to wind damage, etc etc. These are things, that while frowned upon by many, are not worth putting up much fuss. My own parents have a flag that is one of those that hands off an outward extending pole from the porch, and it's not illuminated. They try and bring it in before storms, but don't always get the chance. Regardless, I don't fret because it's not something I would want to stress over.
HOWEVER, flying The Colors BENEATH another flag, NO MATTER WHAT FLAG IT IS, even if it's a State's flag, is highly offensive to many individuals.

You more or less made my point. It's not about the fact that he was "illegally" flying the flag. People really don't care so much about that - "patriotic" people do it all the time. It was more about the message he was sending by flying the Mexican flag over the American flag. I don't like that message, and I think the guy should go back to Mexico if he feels that way, but the first amendment protects his right to do it just like it protects a protester's right to burn the flag. This veteran may respect the flag, but he doesn't respect what it stands for.

how? no, I am not missing your point. it's quite obvious. But look at it this way.
Sure, that store owner has the right to do as he pleases (if he's not illegal, but I'll be nice and assume he is a citizen or at least has the proper rights to be here), but you have to be careful with the rights of the 1st Amendment. It's used too often as a 'do whatever you want pass', and I find that part in of itself disrespectful. However, this is not about that. Or actually, it is.
Think of it like this. He has the right to fly the flag in whatever way he chooses, but since it is such a glaring violation of the flag code (one that deserves action, imho), then that vet has the right to take it down and restore justice to The Colors.

How kind of you in not being a bigot.

He has the right to fly the flag however he wants because he's not breaking the law. The veteran exercised vigilante justice not even for a broken law but for his inability to control his emotions. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that the store owner didn't break a law. He broke a guideline that's used by the government for flying flags, not a law.

I've never said it's law. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. And who cares if it's vigilante justice? Sure, no law was broken, however, the store owner's actions' were severely disrespectful to the country he chooses to live in. If you are going to be a citizen, have respect for the history of The Colors and what they represent.
What I absolutely hate about protesters who burn the flag or generally disrespect it, are they are fvcking morons in that they don't see the irony of any statement they are trying to make with the flag. Guess what? You couldn't do that to The Colors if not for the history of them and those who have sacrificed themselves throughout history to uphold the beliefs of them. So, by disrespecting The Colors, you are being disrespectful to the history of this country.
I support the vet and his 'vigilante justice', because he has equal right to restore respect.
Don't live here if you are going to disrespect the history and purpose of The Colors. And no, that's not a stab directed only to Mexican immigrants, but to all citizens who choose to desecrate and disrespect the flag.

No he doesn't. He trespassed onto private property and vandalized someone's property. Where the fuck is that in the Constitution?

and it is a safe bet that the store owner trespassed into our country........................

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs
The store owner was an idiot for flying the Mexican flag above the American flag. He had to realize how much hatred that would bring his way.

But on the other hand, the flag code is violated ALL THE TIME, even by supposedly patriotic people who fly their flags in front of their houses in the rain or at night unilluminated. Businesses violate the flag code ALL THE TIME by using flags in advertisements.

This isn't about the flag code.

how is it NOT about the flag code? There are certain portions of the flag code, that when violated, do not present much of an issue, even for veterans. Such as not lighting up the flag at night, flying the flag when it is beginning to tear due to wind damage, etc etc. These are things, that while frowned upon by many, are not worth putting up much fuss. My own parents have a flag that is one of those that hands off an outward extending pole from the porch, and it's not illuminated. They try and bring it in before storms, but don't always get the chance. Regardless, I don't fret because it's not something I would want to stress over.
HOWEVER, flying The Colors BENEATH another flag, NO MATTER WHAT FLAG IT IS, even if it's a State's flag, is highly offensive to many individuals.

You more or less made my point. It's not about the fact that he was "illegally" flying the flag. People really don't care so much about that - "patriotic" people do it all the time. It was more about the message he was sending by flying the Mexican flag over the American flag. I don't like that message, and I think the guy should go back to Mexico if he feels that way, but the first amendment protects his right to do it just like it protects a protester's right to burn the flag. This veteran may respect the flag, but he doesn't respect what it stands for.

how? no, I am not missing your point. it's quite obvious. But look at it this way.
Sure, that store owner has the right to do as he pleases (if he's not illegal, but I'll be nice and assume he is a citizen or at least has the proper rights to be here), but you have to be careful with the rights of the 1st Amendment. It's used too often as a 'do whatever you want pass', and I find that part in of itself disrespectful. However, this is not about that. Or actually, it is.
Think of it like this. He has the right to fly the flag in whatever way he chooses, but since it is such a glaring violation of the flag code (one that deserves action, imho), then that vet has the right to take it down and restore justice to The Colors.

How kind of you in not being a bigot.

He has the right to fly the flag however he wants because he's not breaking the law. The veteran exercised vigilante justice not even for a broken law but for his inability to control his emotions. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that the store owner didn't break a law. He broke a guideline that's used by the government for flying flags, not a law.

I've never said it's law. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. And who cares if it's vigilante justice? Sure, no law was broken, however, the store owner's actions' were severely disrespectful to the country he chooses to live in. If you are going to be a citizen, have respect for the history of The Colors and what they represent.
What I absolutely hate about protesters who burn the flag or generally disrespect it, are they are fvcking morons in that they don't see the irony of any statement they are trying to make with the flag. Guess what? You couldn't do that to The Colors if not for the history of them and those who have sacrificed themselves throughout history to uphold the beliefs of them. So, by disrespecting The Colors, you are being disrespectful to the history of this country.
I support the vet and his 'vigilante justice', because he has equal right to restore respect.
Don't live here if you are going to disrespect the history and purpose of The Colors. And no, that's not a stab directed only to Mexican immigrants, but to all citizens who choose to desecrate and disrespect the flag.

No he doesn't. He trespassed onto private property and vandalized someone's property. Where the fuck is that in the Constitution?

and it is a safe bet that the store owner trespassed into our country........................

Not every person of Mexican ancestry in the US is here illegally. Statements like this one only lend creedence to those that think there are motives other than security and rule of law behind some peoples opposition to illegal immigration.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
I've never said it's law. Quit trying to put words into my mouth. And who cares if it's vigilante justice? Sure, no law was broken, however, the store owner's actions' were severely disrespectful to the country he chooses to live in. If you are going to be a citizen, have respect for the history of The Colors and what they represent.
What I absolutely hate about protesters who burn the flag or generally disrespect it, are they are fvcking morons in that they don't see the irony of any statement they are trying to make with the flag. Guess what? You couldn't do that to The Colors if not for the history of them and those who have sacrificed themselves throughout history to uphold the beliefs of them. So, by disrespecting The Colors, you are being disrespectful to the history of this country.
I support the vet and his 'vigilante justice', because he has equal right to restore respect.
Don't live here if you are going to disrespect the history and purpose of The Colors. And no, that's not a stab directed only to Mexican immigrants, but to all citizens who choose to desecrate and disrespect the flag.

The point is that because it's not a law, what the store owner did was not appropriate. You're implication that he had the right to do what he did implies that he was upholding some law through freedom of speech. The fact that he's disrespecting our country. You have every right to support him but it's a naive belief that one has the right to impose their beliefs on another.

The irony in the statement isn't in flag burning. The fact that this country's forefathers fought so tirelessly for the guarantees afforded to us by the ideals that they fought for and displayed in the Constitution is what's important, not The Colors. It would be disrespectful to this country if you choose not to use vigilante justice in enforcing whats right. It's disrespectful to this country if you can't even acknowledge the first amendment in the Constitution. It's disrespectful to this country that one would think that the greatness of this country not to understand that our flag represents the constitution and our ideals and the sacrifice of all who have died for our rights. It would, thus, be disrespectful to this country if someone was so afraid of retribution from others that they couldn't even speak their minds, without being called a racist and a bigot.

The Colors does infact equate to the ideals of this country. The ideals equate to the flag..

Fixed.

Actually, it's a symbolic representation of ideals and not the ideals themselves. Even the burning of the ideals is protected. You are not guaranteed freedom from being offended. Why would you support the symbol of the ideals and not the ideals themselves?

Originally posted by: destrekor
thank you.
The Colors are highly representative of the ideals of this country, and to say they do not go hand in hand is moronic. Why then, does the Flag Code even exist? To pay respect to those who have died for the ideals of this country, expressed through The Colors.
If you want to believe I am disrespecting those who have fought and died for the ideals of this country, then again, I must again state that is moronic. I have nothing against you as a person and am not implying you are moronic, but be careful with your choice of words. I have never, and will never, disrespected those who have sacrificed themselves before for this great land.

Once again, why would you rather support the respect of a symbol of ideals instead of the ideals themselves?

That's a really good point. There is something very wrong with valuing the flag more than the constitution that forms the backbone of this country, the country that the flag stands for. Old Glory is not a symbol of conservative ideals, intolerance, and suppression of free expression that it has been made out to be recently. This is the true desecration of the flag.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
oh come on. I fully support the proper freedoms, and understand everything I have said is not technically able to stand in a court. I know they are not rational, so don't confuse me with someone who is mindless and moronic. I have many things trapped in my mind and this is probably one of the things that should have stayed trapped.
I probably shouldn't attempt to rationalize what I have said either, it's not worth the effort nor will it ever appear rational to people who want to interpret the laws the way they currently have.

But let me just say this: the flag code deserves it's own protection, and should not be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abused.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure it says peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech and freedom of press. It takes some stretching through rather interesting interpretations to read freedom of any actions desirable.
How the hell did the courts ever rule in favor of those that have chosen to not abide by the Flag Code and desecrate The Colors? Bullshit if you ask me. Thus how I say the 1st Amendment has been abused, and that blame lies on some sketchy lawyers that have defended certain people and have gotten cases taken to the Supreme Court. How the Supreme Court ever ruled in favor of the 'protesters', who knows. Maybe I need to study law a little more, and I make no claims of being a law student or one who knows all the intricacies of law.
So, instead of bashing me if I have misinterpreted everything here, how about peacefully correcting me?

And why does proper flag conduct deserve it's own code? The very people that you so highly revere didn't determine that the flag needs it's own protection. They left the Amendments open so that it is widely applicable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression. Hanging a flag whichever way you want to is covered under freedom of expression. It doesn't make any difference if someone is offended by another's expression. The whole point of that amendment is that unpopular sentiments are protected because the oppression of those basic rights is what leads to dictators.

you apparently misunderstand me, as I am far from favoring the removal of the basic rights afforded all citizens of this land. HOWEVER, I dare say, freedom of expression through actions is something you have to interpret, as it is not listed. I fully agree all should have the ability to peacefully protest, to say nearly whatever they want, and print nearly anything they want... but expression beyond those means, the only one obviously being left, through actions, was left out of that list. There are only three things a human can do to express oneself: write, talk, or act. Why would two things be listed as protected freedoms, but not the third? These are things that must be interpreted, and if only our forefathers were still around to shed light on this subject.

Oh, and an amendment has been drafted but has never been passed: The Flag Desecration Amendment.

I personally think the authors left that third method of expression out, as they probably felt it could open up the First Amendment to abuse through people's actions that would and should normally be criminal and punishable.
You tread a fine line when you start interpreting specific things that were not originally there. Who is to say what someone else interprets is wrong but your interpretation is right? This is why there should be no interpretations, and live by what is presented in the document itself. Don't add things that are not there, as then you are created law without proper authorization.

It's strange that you separate actions out from talking and writing. Are those both not actions people take to express themselves? I guess what you're trying to say is that certain types of physical actions aren't as justifiable as others. The only way for you to make that change is through your vote.

Oh, as a side note, it was originally illegal to desecrate the flag and was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. People are pushing to have flag desecration laws put back in place, so the topic is always up for debate. I'm not saying you're wrong in your beliefs other than the fact that the veteran shouldn't have the right to destroy someone else's property because it offends them.

Here's the Supreme Court case regarding flag burning:
United States v. Eichman
The decision was a 5-4 decision, so even amongst the Supreme Court Justices, it was controversial. I wish I could post the opinions from each of the Justices but alas, Westlaw costs money.

 

[Kaspian]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
[
edit: or one could say they "tunneled" through the legislation... :Q

LOL:laugh:

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
That's a really good point. There is something very wrong with valuing the flag more than the constitution that forms the backbone of this country, the country that the flag stands for. Old Glory is not a symbol of conservative ideals, intolerance, and suppression of free expression that it has been made out to be recently. This is the true desecration of the flag.

read my latest post. I am not the one desecrating anything here. And there is nothing I hate more than someone 'putting words in my mouth'. I never said I value the flag more than the Constitution. Considering I have sworn my life to the constitution, it's kind of upsetting you'd make that bold claim.

edit:
trimmed the quote tree. makes thread unbearably long.

 

[buck]

Crafty Mexicans and their glass candy.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: destrekor
oh come on. I fully support the proper freedoms, and understand everything I have said is not technically able to stand in a court. I know they are not rational, so don't confuse me with someone who is mindless and moronic. I have many things trapped in my mind and this is probably one of the things that should have stayed trapped.
I probably shouldn't attempt to rationalize what I have said either, it's not worth the effort nor will it ever appear rational to people who want to interpret the laws the way they currently have.

But let me just say this: the flag code deserves it's own protection, and should not be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment. Why? Because the First Amendment has been abused.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm no law student, but I'm pretty sure it says peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech and freedom of press. It takes some stretching through rather interesting interpretations to read freedom of any actions desirable.
How the hell did the courts ever rule in favor of those that have chosen to not abide by the Flag Code and desecrate The Colors? Bullshit if you ask me. Thus how I say the 1st Amendment has been abused, and that blame lies on some sketchy lawyers that have defended certain people and have gotten cases taken to the Supreme Court. How the Supreme Court ever ruled in favor of the 'protesters', who knows. Maybe I need to study law a little more, and I make no claims of being a law student or one who knows all the intricacies of law.
So, instead of bashing me if I have misinterpreted everything here, how about peacefully correcting me?

And why does proper flag conduct deserve it's own code? The very people that you so highly revere didn't determine that the flag needs it's own protection. They left the Amendments open so that it is widely applicable. Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression. Hanging a flag whichever way you want to is covered under freedom of expression. It doesn't make any difference if someone is offended by another's expression. The whole point of that amendment is that unpopular sentiments are protected because the oppression of those basic rights is what leads to dictators.

you apparently misunderstand me, as I am far from favoring the removal of the basic rights afforded all citizens of this land. HOWEVER, I dare say, freedom of expression through actions is something you have to interpret, as it is not listed. I fully agree all should have the ability to peacefully protest, to say nearly whatever they want, and print nearly anything they want... but expression beyond those means, the only one obviously being left, through actions, was left out of that list. There are only three things a human can do to express oneself: write, talk, or act. Why would two things be listed as protected freedoms, but not the third? These are things that must be interpreted, and if only our forefathers were still around to shed light on this subject.

Oh, and an amendment has been drafted but has never been passed: The Flag Desecration Amendment.

I personally think the authors left that third method of expression out, as they probably felt it could open up the First Amendment to abuse through people's actions that would and should normally be criminal and punishable.
You tread a fine line when you start interpreting specific things that were not originally there. Who is to say what someone else interprets is wrong but your interpretation is right? This is why there should be no interpretations, and live by what is presented in the document itself. Don't add things that are not there, as then you are created law without proper authorization.

It's strange that you separate actions out from talking and writing. Are those both not actions people take to express themselves? I guess what you're trying to say is that certain types of physical actions aren't as justifiable as others. The only way for you to make that change is through your vote.

Oh, as a side note, it was originally illegal to desecrate the flag and was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. People are pushing to have flag desecration laws put back in place, so the topic is always up for debate. I'm not saying you're wrong in your beliefs other than the fact that the veteran shouldn't have the right to destroy someone else's property because it offends them.

Here's the Supreme Court case regarding flag burning:
United States v. Eichman
The decision was a 5-4 decision, so even amongst the Supreme Court Justices, it was controversial. I wish I could post the opinions from each of the Justices but alas, Westlaw costs money.

I know about the case, but I had not known it was a 5-4 decision. Makes me relieved then, as I understand the topic being hot and somewhat controversial at times, and to find that it's even a hot topic within the Supreme Court.
And hmm, I wish I could read the opinions. As boring as it is to read statements from Supreme Court Justices, these are reports I'd love to read. I hate law studies and thus why I definitely don't claim to know all the ins and outs of law, but this is one area of law in which I definitely hold interest.

 

[Phokus]

I find it abhorrent that so-called 'patriots' are actually defending this jackass for violating someone else's private property and their 1st amendment rights. Mill's post should have ended this thread. Violating flag codes does not supersede the US constitution and there is no punishment for not displaying the flag correctly. Morons. :rolleyes;

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
That's a really good point. There is something very wrong with valuing the flag more than the constitution that forms the backbone of this country, the country that the flag stands for. Old Glory is not a symbol of conservative ideals, intolerance, and suppression of free expression that it has been made out to be recently. This is the true desecration of the flag.

read my latest post. I am not the one desecrating anything here. And there is nothing I hate more than someone 'putting words in my mouth'. I never said I value the flag more than the Constitution. Considering I have sworn my life to the constitution, it's kind of upsetting you'd make that bold claim.

edit:
trimmed the quote tree. makes thread unbearably long.

I had to go back and find your post to read it. What you are saying makes no sense-- do you get to decide what is an "abuse" of the first amendment? You are missing the point of freedom of expression. You can't declare an expression of an ilalienable right as an "abuse" and ban it because you find it personally distasteful. That is what living in a free society is about, and that is exactly what makes it free. You should reanalyze what it is you are sworn to protect.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: alien42
who cares?

Im sure a Vet would.

and a vet is more american than i am?

Yes.

Incorrect. The Vet violated someone else's private property and constitutional rights. As far as i'm concerned, he's LESS American than everyone else is.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: destrekor
I know about the case, but I had not known it was a 5-4 decision. Makes me relieved then, as I understand the topic being hot and somewhat controversial at times, and to find that it's even a hot topic within the Supreme Court.
And hmm, I wish I could read the opinions. As boring as it is to read statements from Supreme Court Justices, these are reports I'd love to read. I hate law studies and thus why I definitely don't claim to know all the ins and outs of law, but this is one area of law in which I definitely hold interest.

Constitutional Law is a great field to study, granted it does border on the realm of politics. I'd bet you'd find the opinions actually quite interesting. To put this topic to rest, flag desecration will be forever controversial but the veteran's actions should still be punished because the allowance of one case of vigilante justice would set a bad precedent on many forms of vigilante justice. Imagine a world where there's essentially no court system because people decide that they will act as judge and jury. In fact, you don't even need to imagine. There are plenty of countries that would suffice as great examples.

Oh, one last thing. Destrekor, if you want a good example of why so many people support flag burning within the First Amendment, take a look at what happened to the Chinese students in Hong Kong who burned the PROC flag when China retook control.

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
That guy should be thrown in jail for violating the delicate sensibilities of our Hispanic voting population!

/sarcasm

Keek.