[quote]vroom wrote:
Larry, you are so missing the point…[/quote]
Not at all. Such tradeoffs must be made. The original point is valid. If Billy Bob had a rocket launcher, would you want to live in his neighborhood? It’s just a matter of where you draw the line. Some want the limit to be any firearm; most would agree that private citizens should not be allowed to possess nukes.
That’s the trouble with not having the stomach to read absolutely every line of rubbish in the above posts: you wind up with no clue how what is being said relates to the topic.
Anyhow, if desecrating the flag should be a crime, desecrating the Constitution should be a flogging offense.
Well maybe the constitution should be modernized. Before you go crazy on my ass just think is it right to base law around such an old document? Maybe some things just don’t make sense in the modern world.
Flag burning can not be made illegal, what is free about that? The USA the most free nation on Earth surely couldn’t even be having this argument?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is a silly amendment.
Hillary’s statement is also silly. She knows tha flag burning is “free speech” and any laws prohiiting it are unconstitutional.
If she really wanted to ban flag burning a constitional amendment is the way to go.
I wish they would stop wasting time and money on these issues. [/quote]
Zap Branigan, they will NEVER stop wasting taxpayer money on these silly issues. You can ask them, beg them, bribe them, no matter what they will waste time, money and effort on non issues.
Now THERE is something we have no power over. Instead of going after tobacco companies and cubans with crack, they attack Supplements and middle class working men with roids.
I know Im out of line by saying Politicans are scumbags, but ive yet to see a law or two they are trying to protect for peoples rights.
I have recently switched my political agenda away from Independentism to Libetarianism. America needs a heavier hammer with which to nail the issues of personal freedom with.
Its people like these, the ones that want to control you, that make me dissent.
And as ive said before, Dissent is Patriotic.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
This is false patriotism.
The people we need to be concerned about are not the ones who burn flags. We need to be concerned about the people who want to burn the constitution.
The constitution is what makes America what it is, not the flag.
The men who fought at Lexington and Concord weren’t there because they were dying to have someone design a new flag.
They were there to stand up for their rights and fight for their freedom.
The constitution is what defines our rights and protects our freedom.
This shows how little the politicians think of our intelligence and for good reason. We keep letting them get away with trying this kind of bullshit.
The 6 out of 10 people who don’t vote are in fact making a vote. They are saying that niether of the parties represents them.
I blame this in big part on the news media. The media’s relentless pursuit of scandal has reduced our political choices down to the point that there are few to no good choices.
There are many competant people who do not run for office because they don’t want every little detail of their personal life dissected in the press.
We should form a nonpartisan political action committee dedicated to seeing every one who votes to make flag burning illegal replaced.
What we need in this country is a revolution in our thinking. [/quote]
Well said.
[quote]larryb wrote:
vroom wrote:
Larry, you are so missing the point…
Not at all. Such tradeoffs must be made. The original point is valid. If Billy Bob had a rocket launcher, would you want to live in his neighborhood? It’s just a matter of where you draw the line. Some want the limit to be any firearm; most would agree that private citizens should not be allowed to possess nukes.[/quote]
In the same line of thinking, how would you ever know Billybob has a rocket launcher? Did he tell you? was he outside his house flashing it off? Did he use it on someone? Two of those are illegal rightfully and by all means I wouldnt want to live in a neighborhood with him as well.
As for the guy burning flags in his driveway might offend you and everyone else in your town, whats the real crime? Would you be offended if he was burning Canadian flags? Or how about a Chineese flag?
[quote]BluePfaltz wrote:
larryb wrote:
In the same line of thinking, how would you ever know Billybob has a rocket launcher? Did he tell you? was he outside his house flashing it off? Did he use it on someone? Two of those are illegal rightfully and by all means I wouldnt want to live in a neighborhood with him as well.
[/quote]
But, my friend, although I like some of the ideas, you demonstrate why Libertarianism can’t work in practice. If you have to wait until somebody harms you to take away their rocket launcher, or wait until they blow up the block to take away their TNT…
Or no speed limit for example. I’ve heard Libertarians state that speed limits are unconstitutional, but having crazy people drive 110 would cause harm even if they don’t hit anyone, because I sure as heck would not let my wife use the highway if crazy people were driving 110.
[quote]ConorM wrote:
Flag burning can not be made illegal, what is free about that? The USA the most free nation on Earth surely couldn’t even be having this argument?[/quote]
You’re correct. And not being able to pass a Bill of Attainder against guys with “ConorM” as their screennames limits our freedom, as well. That’s not free at all! So come on, everybody, let’s send a message to the government that if we want legislation sending ConorM to jail, by God, we’re Americans, and we should be FREE to do so!
[quote]ConorM wrote:
Well maybe the constitution should be modernized.[/quote]
ConorM, seriously, government is a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Constitutional protections exist to protect us from the tyranny of the government and the majority.
Besides, whenever I hear anyone talk about “modernizing” the Constitution, they’re almost always despots in training, who seem to know that if only THEY could rule the world, it would be done RIGHT.
Isnt burning the flag the proper treatment of a flag that has touched the ground?
Modernise the constitution?!?!?!? In what way?
With very few exceptions I would not trust our modern politicians to undertake such a task.
The fact that anyone in the congress could suggest infringing upon the 1st amendment, merely for the selfish purpose of trying to appear as some kind of super-patriot and not be soundly denounced by the rest of the congress, clearly demonstrates that they are not up to it.
It took years the first time. Back then they didn’t have focus groups surveys and gallup polls to complicate things.
It took a bloody civil war to remove the influence of just one special interest group. Imagine what would happen today.
OI VIE!
Coming a bit later to this, but…
…as a staunch conservative who would love nothing more than to put my fist under the nose of anyone who burns the American flag, this legislation is an absolute waste of time and energy.
We are at war, have a chasm of deficits due to drunken spending by politicians of all party affiliations, and a Supreme Court eroding federalism and property rights.
How bout we keep our eye on the ball?
Only one thing I’d maybe like to punch more than a flag-burning radical - and that is a politician trying to get his name in the paper when there is real work to be done.
Maybe the constitution is a good place to enforce political correctness. Everything that offends someone can be banned via an amendment…
Yeah, wouldn’t that be nice!
Maybe the constitution should be amended to require the politicians demonstrate an understanding of their country and some political history.
Yes, amend the constitution to require that politicians demonstrate having a brain before they are allowed to have their name put on the ballot.
Let’s make dumb politicians illegal!
This is just a move by the Republicans to force the Democrats into a position that Karl Rove can then spin into the Dems being “Anti-American”.
Rove loves to use hollow patriotism to rally the troops on his side.
I hope all the people that feel that they are true patriots by supporting a ban on flag burning also go out and sign up to join the military in our time of need. Or, if they are too old, I hope that they encourage their children, or nieces and nephews to join up.
True patriots don’t talk tough about things like flag burning. They act tough by putting their lives on the line defending the flag and the country for which it stands.
The Republicans push for this yearly around the 4th of July, but more for political reasons then anything else. I don’t see how it could ever get passed.
That being said, I think flag burning is stupid, but if I buy a flag, it is my fucking flag, and I can do what ever the fuck I want to it. (See the Eminent Domain link here?)
If I want to buy a Ferrari, and put a bumper sticker on it that says, “My other car is an old rusted out Pinto” that is my business because it is my property.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
But, my friend, although I like some of the ideas, you demonstrate why Libertarianism can’t work in practice. If you have to wait until somebody harms you to take away their rocket launcher, or wait until they blow up the block to take away their TNT…
[/quote]
The ideals of almost every political party wouldn’t work in practice. I’m sure most Libertarians do not support private ownership of armed rocket launchers. You can launch a fairly large and dangerous rocket now, with the proper permits and such, but obviously not one with an explosive warhead, and not from a suburban back yard.
This is one of those things for which the truth may be counterintuitive. A simple “safe and reasonable” speed law would probably work in most places, and result in safer roads.
The current practice of setting the speed limits well below the average traffic speed appears to cause more accidents. See:
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
I would guess that this is because it results in a larger variation in vehicle speeds, since some drivers will keep to the speed limit despite the prevailing traffic speed and the problems that driving well below that speed causes. It does make it easier to write tickets though.
[quote]larryb wrote:
The current practice of setting the speed limits well below the average traffic speed appears to cause more accidents. See:
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
[/quote]
That’s an interesting study, and one which most of us know intuitively to be true (although there are design flaws as I see it-mainly that you can’t just change the speed limit and get overnight behavioral changes).
There need to be posted speed limits in certain areas where the road conditions change-sharp curves for example.
What about minimum speeds?
What I hate is when somebody rides a bicycle on the street with the flow of traffic but only goes 10-15 mph and then tries to pass you on your right when you are making a right hand turn. Isn’t that my lane?
It doesn’t matter, we will almost certainly have self-driving cars in 15 years. (We COULD very easily)
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
That’s an interesting study, and one which most of us know intuitively to be true (although there are design flaws as I see it-mainly that you can’t just change the speed limit and get overnight behavioral changes).
[/quote]
I think that most people do not intuitively know that roads are much safer when the traffic moves at a uniform speed, or at least they greatly underestimate the effect. Those who drive at the speed limit when the rest of the traffic is 15mph over probably don’t realize the danger they are placing themselves and others in.
We now have those orange speed signs for curves, which are suggestions only - not enforcable.
A rather amusing take from the conservative The American Spectator magazine:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8351
Waving the Burning Flag
By John Tabin
Published 6/24/2005 12:07:39 AM
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution decrees that “Congress shall make no law…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.” Does this guarantee a right to burn a flag?
When the Supreme Court took the question up in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson and 1990’s United States v. Eichman, the justices split 5-4 in favor of free expression, and both the liberals and conservatives were divided (in both cases, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia joined the majority while John Paul Stevens and William Rehnquist dissented). Frankly, I doubt even the framers would have agreed on the answer.
This week the House of Representatives voted, as it has several times before, for a constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to ban flag-desecration. The amendment is closer than ever to passing the Senate (it’s only two votes away, by most accounts) and if it did it would almost certainly make it through 38 state legislatures and become a part of the Constitution. So: Whether or not laws against flag-burning are unconstitutional, should they be?
One might offer that it doesn’t matter much. The flag went unprotected by law until the late 19th century; the Republic survived. By 1932 every state had a flag-desecration law, and in 1968, in response to Vietnam protesters burning the flag, Congress passed a federal flag-desecration law that stood for two decades before it was revised in the wake of Johnson and overturned in Eichman. It would be hard to argue that the 20th century was a dark age for free speech. Nor has there, in the past 15 years, been an epidemic of desecration; according to the Citizen Flag Alliance (which supports the amendment), last year there was only one reported incident of flag-burning.
But what about the symbolism of the amendment? I know how supporters mean it: as a patriotic, almost chivalric defense against those, aided and abetted by egg-headed jurists, who would use the flag to dishonor a great nation. But that’s not the only way it might look. Rather, it might seem of a piece with the pernicious policies of leftish nannyism – overbroad sexual harassment laws, college campus speech codes – designed to establish a right not to be offended. It seems almost neurotic: Do we really feel threatened by those so moronic that they burn the American flag, call ours a fascist state, face no consequences, and completely miss the irony?
The effort to protect the flag by constitutional amendment ought to be ended. Not because our federal courts have better things to do than prosecute flag-burners. Not because our cherished liberties ought to be kept as absolute as possible. Not even because constitutional amendments ought to restrict the power of Congress rather than expand it. Rather, the flag-protection effort ought to be scotched for the simple reason that America doesn’t get rattled by some stupid little punk with a Che Guevara T-shirt and a Zippo. We are, or ought to be, far too thick-skinned a nation for that.
John Tabin is a frequent online contributor to The American Spectator.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t agree with the act. However, the moment we start making actions we don’t agree with illegal simply because we don’t agree with them, the easier it will be to eventually make further restrictions on any action that whoever is in power doesn’t agree with. [/quote]
No, instead what we should do is tell a Marine, who served in any war, where a flag burner lives and let the healing begin!