Post by: rocky_2197 on October 14, 2004, 01:47:00 AM
Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.
Vote to propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the U.S. flag.
S J Res 14: Prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Vote to pass a resolution that would propose a constitutional amendment granting Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
(Resolution sponsored by Hatch, R-UT)
Resolution rejected 63-37: R51-4; D 12-33 on 03/29/2000; a 2/3rds majority is required to pass constitutional amendment resolutions.
How can some one that voted against an amendemnt to the constitution prohibiting the desecration of the American flag call himeself patriotic. This just adds to many reasons to support Bush rather than Kerry,
Post by: gcskate27 on October 14, 2004, 02:50:00 AM
you can be patriotic without going apeshit at someone for setting a flag on fire...
Post by: pedro on October 14, 2004, 06:47:00 AM
and to me, questioning the things going on in the governemnt and protesting them is the most patriotic thing a person can do...after all, that is what this country was built on.
Post by: brandogg on October 14, 2004, 08:22:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on October 14, 2004, 08:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Oct 14 2004, 10:53 AM) |
| ugh, i know this is something we will just always disagree on so theres no point in arguing but... its just a peice of cloth... and dont go on and on about what it represents, dont think i havent thought of that... you can be patriotic without going apeshit at someone for setting a flag on fire... |
couldn't agree with you more on this one. It's not even a bush v kerry thing but it will turn into one on here
Post by: brandogg on October 14, 2004, 09:31:00 AM
Post by: pug_ster on October 14, 2004, 09:43:00 AM
http://thomas.loc.go...4:@@@L&summ2=m
There are already laws that prohibit desecration of the flag so why do we need an amendment for it? If we have an amendment for desecration of the flag, maybe we should have an amendment for talking in the cell phone while driving.
Post by: gcskate27 on October 14, 2004, 11:34:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on October 14, 2004, 03:03:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on October 14, 2004, 03:36:00 PM
http://thomas.loc.go...sel=TOC_113690
Kind of creative though. The bill thought of reasons why it should not be passed because essentally it was not necessary.
Post by: gronne on October 14, 2004, 05:38:00 PM
Tell you what, if you make it illegal to burn a flag, it'd be an even greater tension in doing so, and then you'll definitely see it happen more often.
Post by: melon on October 14, 2004, 06:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 14 2004, 04:25 PM) |
| Anyway, the flag is NOT just a piece of cloth. I don't think any country considers their flag "just a piece of cloth" |
Seriously, this is what cracks me up. Its a piece of material, I wouldnt care if someone wiped there arse with the British or the English flag.
Im sure a lot of Scotsman and Welshman have.
Who cares???
It is only a piece of material and as far as im aware this is the view held by 99% of the British/English population.
But then again dont you guys have flag poles in your garden and stuff?
Post by: pug_ster on October 14, 2004, 07:20:00 PM
That way, there is no way for Foreigners to descrate the flag since the Chinese workers probably descrate the flag while manufacturing them
Post by: brandogg on October 14, 2004, 07:48:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 14, 2004, 08:06:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on October 14, 2004, 08:34:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on October 14, 2004, 10:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 15 2004, 03:51 AM) |
| Where have you seen a US flag made in China? I saw a few at a grocery store today and they all had Made in the USA stickers on them. You could compare desecrating a flag to someone taking a soldiers earned medals, and shitting on them, and saying "it's ok, their just some cloth and metal". |
I had 1 cheap $3 flag left over from the 4th of July sitting on my desk and it says that it is made in China on the stick. Might I add that what the Amendment didn't cover the material of the flag. Mine's is made of cheap plastic, and I don't know if someone burning cheaper plastic flag would have the same type of descration as burning an American made cloth flag...
Just to prove that I am not lying, here's an article that explains that some American Flags are actually made in China.
http://www.csmonitor...gn.html?related
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 14, 2004, 10:27:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| You could compare desecrating a flag to someone taking a soldiers earned medals, and shitting on them, and saying "it's ok, their just some cloth and metal". |
It's kind of like printing stories in the newspaper that a particular Senator didn't earn his medals in Vietnam, how disrespectful!
A flag is a flag is a flag.
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 15, 2004, 02:54:00 AM
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight'
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen, thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream;
'Tis the star-spangled banner: oh, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that has made and preserved us as a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust";
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
and finaly,
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and for which it stands- one nation, under God, indivisible-with liberty and justice for all."
Post by: thomes08 on October 15, 2004, 07:59:00 AM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 15 2004, 03:51 AM) |
| Where have you seen a US flag made in China? I saw a few at a grocery store today and they all had Made in the USA stickers on them. You could compare desecrating a flag to someone taking a soldiers earned medals, and shitting on them, and saying "it's ok, their just some cloth and metal". |
no you can't compare the two, because if you burn your own flag it's your own, if you take anything of anyone else's and ruin it on purpose, that's a crime. there's a difference
Post by: pug_ster on October 15, 2004, 12:14:00 PM
http://thomas.loc.go...sel=TOC_113690
One reason why this Amendment was not passed in the first place (and Kerry voted against it) was that it will probably cause more controversy than not passing it. I think most Americans in their right mind would probably be pissed someone else burning a flag. The boys in Blue and the FBI will be more than happy to deal with those scums. We don't need an Amendment like that.
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 15, 2004, 12:19:00 PM
If you should be allowed to wave it, someone else should be allowed to burn it.
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 15, 2004, 12:32:00 PM
Drama queen.
They fought and died for the ideals, not the flag.
Post by: thomes08 on October 15, 2004, 12:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 15 2004, 08:20 PM) |
| If any flag is just cloth then what would happen if i chose to hang a few ww2 nazi germany flags with the swastika in my lawn. Then I might add the SS runes and deaths head flag right beside it. Then maybe I would put some communist flags around. I would think instantly i would get a lot of heat for that. People at night would probably tear them down throw trash in my yard. Why? because flags are symbols. No one would buy the excuse they're just cloth and it doesnt matter what they symbolize. Just saying the American flag stands for freedom, courage, and justice. Its a symbol. |
go ahead and do it then. It's your right
Post by: gcskate27 on October 15, 2004, 12:56:00 PM
*edit, because i know your not the sharpest person here and will try adn say "well i guess youre a nazi" or some stupid shit like that, i have to put this little disclaimer saying that i do not support, nor believe in nazi ideals...
Post by: thomes08 on October 15, 2004, 01:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Oct 15 2004, 08:59 PM) |
| ok if you put up nazi flags and the like, should there be an ammendment to where its illegal to harm those flags? people fought and died for those ideals as well... i bet you wouldnt think twice about burning a nazi flag because you dont agree with the ideals of the party... if you cant separate ideals from a physical object, youve got problems... *edit, because i know your not the sharpest person here and will try adn say "well i guess youre a nazi" or some stupid shit like that, i have to put this little disclaimer saying that i do not support, nor believe in nazi ideals... |
nicely put
Post by: brandogg on October 15, 2004, 02:04:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on October 15, 2004, 02:10:00 PM
Post by: Baner on October 15, 2004, 02:18:00 PM
The flag is an icon of your patriotism. I'm not saying it makes you patriotic, but flying the flag is a way of voicing your patriotism for that country. That's why so many people flew the flag in their yards after 9/11. Burning a flag is the same thing as saying the opposite. Showing others your hate for that country. If you hate a country enough to disgrace their flag, why live their in the first place.
Burning the nazi flag would show your disgrace for their patriotism, and what their patriotic for. Many poeple would agree with you for burning a nazi flag, considering their always synonomis with hate, anger, and genocide.
All I'm trying to say is if you are against a nation to that degree, then you should leave. There's no reason for you to be living in a country that you disagree with.
(didn't read everything, just the last page)
Post by: thomes08 on October 15, 2004, 03:15:00 PM
i spit that out kind of fast did that make sense?
thomes08
Post by: gcskate27 on October 15, 2004, 09:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (baner) |
| Many poeple would agree with you for burning a nazi flag, considering their always synonomis with hate, anger, and genocide. |
and many people would think the same about the us flag... im not saying they are correct but why should they not burn a flag of a country they dont believe in because other people associate positive things with it?
| QUOTE |
| Actually I am surprised you havent said the same to me considering my nick and avatar, but then again your not the sharpest either. |
strangely enough, i dont think about you that much... your just one of those persons whos posts cause me to either laugh or hit my forehead with my palm...
Post by: melon on October 16, 2004, 02:25:00 AM
Im sure there was flag burning at the time of the Vietnam war, because of what the government was doing. People have a right to voice there disconsent and if they feel like burning a flag then so be it.
Your flag which represents both the good and bad of America.
Post by: gcskate27 on October 16, 2004, 10:23:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| It works the same way as burning the picture of someone's mother. |
or tearing a picture of the pope on a sketch comedy show...
i do agree that its fairly pointless and uneffective though, but most protest actions are...
Post by: thomes08 on October 16, 2004, 08:10:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: K98 on October 16, 2004, 10:34:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Free speech has not changed at all in the past 200 years..... |
Ok so they burned flags back in the 1800s or whatever. Did they have hippy protestors, or the mass media we have today?
| QUOTE |
| but guns and other weapons have. Did they have AK47's and other assult rifles back then? Didn't think so. It's like 200 years from now it's ok for people to own small nukes. Is that ok? explain why or why not |
Did the govt have ak-47s back then? No. They had the same guns as the colonists had. Citizens have just about kept pace with the govts guns. Purpose of the second amendment isn't simply to just own guns, it's to keep the people free and not under tyranny. The govt knows we're armed, atleast some of us, so it wont oppress us.
Lol about the owning nukes that is about the most retarded thing I've ever read to say guns should be taken away. The amendment says "keep and bear arms" not bombs, ships, tanks, subs, and cannons.
| QUOTE |
| Don't throw everyone with Liberal leanings into the same pile, K98. I don't want to reverse the 2nd amendment at all. I think there should be limits on what weapons people should be able to buy. I think people who buy guns should have serious background checks. Most liberals I know feel that way. |
"Shall not be infringed" only quote needed there. Adding limits is an attempt to reverse the 2nd...slowly. Slowly they ban certain guns, then ammo, then a few more guns, add restrictions, until it's too much of a hassle to own guns. That's what gun control is.
What the hell u mean serious background tests? They have instant checks. 5 days waitign period for pistols. What will these serious background tests look for that these other tests won't?
Post by: Mage on October 16, 2004, 11:06:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 17 2004, 09:14 AM) |
| When did I say i was trying to take away someones right? I was saying it's just the wrong thing to do. I would like to ask you about the second amendement. I know most of you want that right taken away BUT when it comes to free speech rights it so protected. So don't go around fucking complaining about burning a flag being illegal is infirnging on your rights, when all of you want to disarm all the citizens in the US. Hypocrites |
My point is yes it is their right to express their speech in such ways. If they can currently do and be legal, and you pass a law to make it so it is no longer legal, then yes you just took a right away. I dont see how people can see it any other way. Being "patriotic" has nothing to do with this. This is more about silencing dissent.
Edit: As for gun rights, I don't think we should take them away, even though I have no guns myself.
Post by: K98 on October 17, 2004, 12:17:00 AM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 17, 2004, 03:04:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The amendment says "keep and bear arms" not bombs, ships, tanks, subs, and cannons. |
those are 'arms'... your contradicting yourself... you say the founders were talking about one thing (firearms), but not another(nukes), but it encompasses anything that came after it(assault rifles)... at what point would a chain gun not be covered? when its mounted in a pickup truck?
your arguments make no sense... you cant just say "its an ammendment so it shouldnt/cant be changed"
Post by: feflicker on October 17, 2004, 03:13:00 AM
Btw, the flag is a piece of cloth. But what it represents is much more than that. I don't think everyone who has ever burned a flag in the history of this country is automatically unpatriotic. There is a time and a place for everything. We can all agree/disagree on when those times where/are
Post by: drunkmunk on October 17, 2004, 06:47:00 AM
The U.S. flag is more than a piece of cloth it is a symbol and to burn it is to say that you hate our country (alot of anti U.S. protests in other countries involve burning our flag). It is a symbol of what I feel to be the greatest concept and ideals that a country could be founded on ... Freedom.
Post by: thomes08 on October 17, 2004, 09:41:00 AM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 17, 2004, 07:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (websters) |
| Main Entry: 3arm Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma 1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM b : a combat branch (as of an army) c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy) |
Post by: K98 on October 17, 2004, 10:08:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| History has shown only the unarmed are the easy ones to rule over. You can look at Afghanistan and see how true that is. |
What do i need to look at? The northern alliance only took out the taliban with the US helping. Other examples czarist russia, 1930s Soviet Union where Stalin burned all the crops in Ukraine causing 1000s of people to starve in the winter, Nazi Germany, China, or North Korea. Need others?
| QUOTE |
| By your "arms" definition, do you think someone will stand up to the government without any artillery? |
War for Independence defeated the most powerful nation in the world. Vietnam even with us bombing, defoliating, and sending thousands of troops still held out to win. I think we would of won in a few more years. Boer war still lost but were overwhelmed by the Bits. If theres a determined effort it is possible. you also seem to think the 2A only applies to a sole individual. It applies to the people to be able to revolt against the govt. You dont get that at all.
| QUOTE |
| If you hunt with it, you'll destroy the target well beyond being able to eat it, much less display it's shredded corpse. Unless you like that sort of thing. |
Wow you just showed you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about these "assault weapons". They are a caliber between a pistol round and a rifle round. You can't hunt deer with these guns. Small game though. You fell for the antis ploy of showing how they are more deadly than anything when infact they aren't.
| QUOTE |
| I'm glad you get kicks using it, and don't use it for killing people. You haven't mentioned where the line is drawn in your mind. |
You've got the wrong attitude to even begin to understand anything about me or guns. No I wouldn't ever go shoot someone with a gun unless if i absolutely have to for self defense.
Lastly this is too far off topic so I'm done posting about guns on this topic.
Post by: gcskate27 on October 18, 2004, 12:18:00 AM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Oct 17 2004, 10:11 PM) |
| Lastly this is too far off topic so I'm done posting about guns on this topic. |
convieniently ignoring my last post...
Post by: K98 on October 18, 2004, 01:19:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| 1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM |
It says especially a firearm. What point are you trying to make here? That's mainly why your post just got ignored.
Post by: gcskate27 on October 18, 2004, 01:33:00 PM
Post by: cainedna on October 18, 2004, 09:03:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 18, 2004, 10:23:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I would bet there's tons of incidents in the Constitution that way. Is that Webster dictionary def. from the time of the Constitution? You know words do change meanings over time, or maybe you didnt. Not that I care it's just your arguement is pointless and worth nothing. |
i know words change meaning*, but your the moron arguing the losing side over what the word means as seen here:
| QUOTE |
| I have never in my life seen a tank, cannon, ship, sub refered to as "arms". Cannon is artillery. Ship is navy. Sub is navy. Hmm solved that. |
*hmm i wonder where you stand on the gay marraige issue?
but lets leave that to another thread...