Mexican activist attempts to burn American Flag-key word "attempts"

page: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So, to break that down, would it be safe to say that the right to bear arms is to offset the possibility of the govenment from using the "militia" on it's own citizens?


Yes it would be safe to say..Given the way it reads it is obvious.


[edit on 31-7-2007 by Digital_Reality]




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boondock78
i am not chastising anyones 'right' to stop the guy cause you have no right....you have the right to protest it, speak out against it, holler at him to stop, write your lawmakers and such but you do not have the right to take his flag or put your hands on him...that is what i have a problem with.
you never said he was illegal but you sure ranted about the illegals enough....sorry if i implied that you wished pain on him....others did though. i got confused.


Dock, I to apologize for being a bit harsh in my posts. I do not want to take away the freedoms we now have. Our current Administration does enough of that. But what I do want is for people to respect and show a little loyalty to the flag. Many don’t see the flag as very much but I was brought up to look at it as a symbol of the very freedoms we now are able to exercise. Yes its massed produced and is everywhere for citizens to buy or fly. I think that is a good thing because of its history and for what it stands for. The flag is maybe our only form left of expression of who we are as a people and society.

My immigration rant was to show just how much of our culture and history has been diluted by the illegal immigrant issue in America. Our language is being assailed in favor of Spanish; our services are being eroded as a result of those who get benefits with out paying into the system. So again I do understand the rights given in the constitution however changes have been made to it in the past. I just wish our congress had the nuts to protect ol Glory. Because with out the basis for which it was created we would not be chatting like this IMO.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Digital_Reality

Originally posted by intrepid
So, to break that down, would it be safe to say that the right to bear arms is to offset the possibility of the govenment from using the "militia" on it's own citizens?


Yes it would be safe to say..Given the way it reads it is obvious.


[edit on 31-7-2007 by Digital_Reality]


OK. Do you see this as a good or necessary thing?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
. But what I do want is for people to respect and show a little loyalty to the flag. Many don’t see the flag as very much but I was brought up to look at it as a symbol of the very freedoms we now are able to exercise.




no need to apologise...

what i want people to do is respect the flag if they attach meaning to it and quit worrying about what it means to others and what they do to their flag....that would be a good thing...

it's nice that you want people to show loyalty and respect to the flag, but people don't have to...

it's just the way it is man....everyone feels different.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Digital_Reality

Originally posted by intrepid
So, to break that down, would it be safe to say that the right to bear arms is to offset the possibility of the govenment from using the "militia" on it's own citizens?


Yes it would be safe to say..Given the way it reads it is obvious.


[edit on 31-7-2007 by Digital_Reality]


OK. Do you see this as a good or necessary thing?

Yes I do.. Its a fundamental part of being an American.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So, to break that down, would it be safe to say that the right to bear arms is to offset the possibility of the govenment from using the "militia" on it's own citizens?


I would agree with that assesment, The right of the citizen to self defense was part of Natural Law that all of the founders believed in. The amendment is in place to secure all of the Natural Law rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. It is the ultimate check and balance upon the Government.

Many will not agree with this considering all who value thier right to self defense as "gun nuts".

Many will say that the National Guard is the Militia and that the amendment is outdated, misinterpreted, or that self defense is not what the founding fathers intended.

militia

In the US citizens are not allowed true military weapons ( contrary to popular belief) the are allowed civilian copies of them very few citizens have access to machine guns for example or automatic rifles ( they can be obtained but only at great cost and a lengthy permit process and an agreement to allow the BATFE to inspect the storage of said weapons at anytime.)

I personally do not consider the National Guard as the militia it has become the reserve force of the US military which was not the original intent. The Militia is intended for Home Defense and should consist of all fit citizens able to bear arms.

Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boondock78

no need to apologise...

what i want people to do is respect the flag if they attach meaning to it and quit worrying about what it means to others and what they do to their flag....that would be a good thing...

it's nice that you want people to show loyalty and respect to the flag, but people don't have to...

it's just the way it is man....everyone feels different.



i guess this is the hard part of being in a free society.Having to tolerate things like this with out jamming someone. Not much bothers me but this sure does. Anyway thank you for the discussion thats why I love ATS.

[edit on 31-7-2007 by geemony]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Sorry guys, I got called out. So, the Father's saw that the populous may need to resist the government at some time. The right to bear arms. Resistance doesn't only come in the form of armed resistance. Protests are also a form of resistance. Did they see the need for this in the future? Maybe. The Tea Party was a protest.

The burning of the flag came into vogue in the 60's. Was it a protest against the country? Or was it a protest against the war and the gov't? I think we all know the answer to that. There's a HUGE difference here. Some would consider protesting patriotic.

What was this guys motivation? We don't know. People are getting up in arms about this without knowing. Maybe he's protesting the Iraq war. I can see someone doing that. Much better than bitching about it on an internet site. He may actually be doing something.

Next point and I think the one here that's got people bent out of shape. Is he a citizen? Going on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty" I'm going to assume he's a citizen until otherwise proven. Thus exercising his Constitutional rights.

Now for those that say that you would stop him? You have NO rights to prevent someone from exercising theirs. It would be petty theft and assault. You would have NO legal standing in a court.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ha ha ha.

The posts here make me want to go buy a flag, roast that bad boy, then piss on it to put it out. All in front of a crowd of good ole boys. I hope they're as tough as the "true Americans" posting in this thread, cuz that would be some fine bare knuckle action.



Singing:::: He's a Internet Tough Guy, Gotta Love an Internet Tough guy..



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ha ha ha.

The posts here make me want to go buy a flag, roast that bad boy, then piss on it to put it out. All in front of a crowd of good ole boys. I hope they're as tough as the "true Americans" posting in this thread, cuz that would be some fine bare knuckle action.



Keep seeking the truth because you obviously haven't even come close to finding it yet.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Here's an experiment for all the 'pro-flag' burners to try.......

Go out in public and burn:

A Mexican Flag......see the type of reaction you'd get
A Koran.......see the type of response you would get
An Iranian Flag see the type of response you would get

Though the above items are made of paper & 'cotton' (as one poster mentioned) there would be a tremendous outpouring of violence......yet this is 'free-speech' isn't it?

I rememebr a bunch of Ct'ers complaining about Koran's being flushed in toilets........to me the soldiers were on American Soil expressing 'free-speech'.......how come you nay-sayers didn't support them?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2


I rememebr a bunch of Ct'ers complaining about Koran's being flushed in toilets........to me the soldiers were on American Soil expressing 'free-speech'.......how come you nay-sayers didn't support them?



Ferretman, like I said... it's all political correctness... It's bad to do those things that you mentioned because it "hurts someone else's feelings"... But doing things to "hurt a patriot's" feelings is fine and dandy... It's the liberal double standard.



[edit on 31-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
It's the liberal double standard.





Are you calling me a liberal because I'm defending the Constitution? Is that the only recourse you have because you KNOW your argument is bogus?



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Intrepid...
One thing I'll say about you is that you're a straight shooter...


No, I don't know if you're liberal or not... I just find it funny that there are liberals that will argue from the angle that you are, yet, condemn other ACTS that could just as easily be considered "free speech.."

[edit on 31-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Intrepid...
One thing I'll say about you is that you're a straight shooter...


If you think that's funny this will blow your mind.

Wait for it............... I'm Canadian.





posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Wait for it............... I'm Canadian.




I was fairly certain you were.. I have seen you post that before... Also, I am listening to the interview you did on ATSMix... So...


[edit on 31-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
No, I don't know if you're liberal or not... I just find it funny that there are liberals that will argue from the angle that you are, yet, condemn other ACTS that could just as easily be considered "free speech.."

[edit on 31-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


Cool, I'll go back and answer ferretman's post.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Here's an experiment for all the 'pro-flag' burners to try.......

Go out in public and burn:

A Mexican Flag......see the type of reaction you'd get
A Koran.......see the type of response you would get
An Iranian Flag see the type of response you would get


While technically doing any of the above ARE protected by "free speech" imo, they can also be considered "hate crimes". An American burning a flag to protest his own government could hardly be classified as such.

Apples and oranges.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by ferretman2
Here's an experiment for all the 'pro-flag' burners to try.......

Go out in public and burn:

A Mexican Flag......see the type of reaction you'd get
A Koran.......see the type of response you would get
An Iranian Flag see the type of response you would get


While technically doing any of the above ARE protected by "free speech" imo, they can also be considered "hate crimes". An American burning a flag to protest his own government could hardly be classified as such.

Apples and oranges.


Why is burning a Mexican or Iranian flag a "hate" crime?
Burning the Koran a "hate" crime?

Apparently burning the American flag is OK but any other flag gets burned its a 'hate" crime?

Personally if I was gonna burn any thing in protest it would be a UN flag but thats just me.

[edit on 7/31/2007 by DarkStormCrow]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


While technically doing any of the above ARE protected by "free speech" imo, they can also be considered "hate crimes". An American burning a flag to protest his own government could hardly be classified as such.

Apples and oranges.


Burning an Iranian flag is a "hate crime?" Really? What is the difference between burning an Iranian flag and an American one?





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join