Droppersneck
Bluelighter
The second amendment doesnt allow me to own a rocket launcher or chemical weapons ffs and they are considered arms as defined by your very own anti second amendment arguments..
Alasdairm
Flag desecration, and how about it?
- Thread starter Bardeaux
- Start date
The second amendment doesnt allow me to own a rocket launcher or chemical weapons ffs and they are considered arms as defined by your very own anti second amendment arguments..
Alasdairm
treezy z
Bluelighter
Fuck the flag, I'd burn em all day long if I had em. I need to get out of Amerikkka aka Sodom.
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
It would be pretty stupid if soldiers went into battle waving a bright red, white and blue flag as it would give away their position and they would be shot. It seems they choose to wave the flag only when it's convenient.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Sounds like what the Brits did during the revolutionary war.
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
I find it more offensive when people wear a nations flag as an item of clothing.
Flag etiquette usually demands they do not touch the ground and are not worn as a cape. If you ignore these you may as well stand on it or set it on fire
Flag etiquette usually demands they do not touch the ground and are not worn as a cape. If you ignore these you may as well stand on it or set it on fire
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Intent might matter.
What if, say, you were a band of people, who fought your way out of a repressive system, and this flag identified you in some way? That it was very recent that blood was shed by people who identified with it?
What if it was very recent that a country the size of China attacked a state/country the size of Rhode Island, and through years of lost life and bloodshed, those Rhode Islanders finally beat back that force, and this was their symbols you stood on?
Yes, the flag is a piece of fabric- and a symbol, but, in the minds of people, symbols have meanings.
I can see what some have said, like socko, about draw Muhammad day... Relating it to that. I think everyone has a lot to learn... Around the board. I do.
I for one would not be one drawing Muhammad... And would not stand on this flag, in this manner. The only way I might is if it actively represented, with intention, my oppression... Which I dont think it does. For what it is supposed to represent, I think the people who disrespect it in this way are out of touch.
....Banning it, though? I don't think that is the way to deal with it.
More enlightened Muslims aren't so hard about Muhammad being drawn... To them, one simply can't draw him. Just like you can't draw Jesus. These representations just can't represent. And if anything might detract. At least that's what I got from it. These people likely just dont understand. That's no reason to kill them, jail them, or whatever. ...
What if, say, you were a band of people, who fought your way out of a repressive system, and this flag identified you in some way? That it was very recent that blood was shed by people who identified with it?
What if it was very recent that a country the size of China attacked a state/country the size of Rhode Island, and through years of lost life and bloodshed, those Rhode Islanders finally beat back that force, and this was their symbols you stood on?
Yes, the flag is a piece of fabric- and a symbol, but, in the minds of people, symbols have meanings.
I can see what some have said, like socko, about draw Muhammad day... Relating it to that. I think everyone has a lot to learn... Around the board. I do.
I for one would not be one drawing Muhammad... And would not stand on this flag, in this manner. The only way I might is if it actively represented, with intention, my oppression... Which I dont think it does. For what it is supposed to represent, I think the people who disrespect it in this way are out of touch.
....Banning it, though? I don't think that is the way to deal with it.
More enlightened Muslims aren't so hard about Muhammad being drawn... To them, one simply can't draw him. Just like you can't draw Jesus. These representations just can't represent. And if anything might detract. At least that's what I got from it. These people likely just dont understand. That's no reason to kill them, jail them, or whatever. ...
Last edited:
of course that is true.
but nobody has a monopoly on what that meaning is. guys like nuttynutskin and shane lawler tell you that it's 'murica and if you don't like their brand of freedom then fuck off out of here.
well, one thing i think that everybody on all sides of this discussion can agree on is that the american flag stands for, among other things, freedom. right?
some of us just believe that freedom includes the freedom to burn the symbol itself. as bardo said, it's the perfect test.
yet again: "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."
alasdair
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
One has the freedom to do w/e they want only not nessisarily without consequence. You could saw off your shotgun barrel and shoot it as you please, but with possible consequence.. Heck there are already limits to the first amendement so why is this envelope pushing?
i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of gun-totin' patriots blabbing about how important freedom and constitutional rights are then the moment that a great example of that comes along with which they happen to disagree, they get butt-hurt and seek to limit freedom and deny rights.
isn't it ironic. dontcha think?
alasdair
isn't it ironic. dontcha think?
alasdair
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Is the patriot/freedom act not a limit on the 4th amendment? There are limits clearly already to the second and while I admit there are more sensible limits to be made the slippery slope argument goes a long way with most proposed actions to the second in particular. People are patriotic in general so anti american liberals have an uphill battle with this one imo
yes it is. sfw?
we're talking about freedom-hating, anti-american right-wingers right now, droops.
liberals don't hate america. they love it in a way you can't (won't) understand.
alasdair
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Does it not seem devicive to want to limit one amendement but not limit another? Not a right winger just an American that has pride and uses logic. To have any sort of absolute credible stance you would either have to be all for limits across the board or be totally against imo
sure. i just disagree that, for example, requiring gun owners to report the loss of a firearm, constitutes a limit on a citizens constitutional right to bear arms.
i don't think that making you wait a few days to get a gun - while the state checks that you're not a batshit crazy, murderous nutjob - constitutes a limit on a citizens constitutional right to bear arms.
it strikes me that, when discussing these issues, telling anybody who disagrees with you that they hate american and they should just gtfo, kind of gloriously misses the point. you drone on and on and on about how liberals are anti-american. who gave you a monopoly on what it means to love america?
alasdair
i don't think that making you wait a few days to get a gun - while the state checks that you're not a batshit crazy, murderous nutjob - constitutes a limit on a citizens constitutional right to bear arms.
it strikes me that, when discussing these issues, telling anybody who disagrees with you that they hate american and they should just gtfo, kind of gloriously misses the point. you drone on and on and on about how liberals are anti-american. who gave you a monopoly on what it means to love america?
alasdair
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
I agree on those 2nd amendment opinions. I think that people are so afraid that those reforms will give the government the confidence to come back for more restrictive measures on the second. It's not that anyone has a monopoly on what is american I think that our history has dictated the parameters to what is patriotic and what isn't. Limiting ones right to own guns is not nor is burning the flag traditionally. I think if the sentiment changes over time on a large scale then you will see your version of America emerge ttytt
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Because this does no bodily harm to the public nor does it cause any sort of threat of danger. Yelling "fire" in a crowded venue or threatening to kill heads of state obviously have harmful or threatening consequences.
What happened to the libertarianism? I know it feels good to refer to yourself as a libertarian who loves freedom. The important part is proving it.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Obscenity, false statement of facts, child porn, fighting words/offesnsive speech, threats, speech owned by others, commercial speech, and there are tons of government appointed restrictions on speech within its bureaucracy iirc
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Most of those aren't illegal, and I wouldn't exactly classify child porn as speech. Verbal or otherwise victimless obscenity shouldn't be illegal (the guy in my avatar caught some heat for this if you remember), "fighting words" and lying aren't illegal (unless under oath), neither is offensive speech. If this were the case, Mein Kampf wouldn't be sitting on a shelf in my local city library. I have no problem with a book that I despise being openly available to anyone with a library card. Commercial speech incidents usually imply a breach of voluntary contract of some kind or patent law.
The only logical reason behind banning certain speech on the governmental level would be to prevent injury or death.
The only logical reason behind banning certain speech on the governmental level would be to prevent injury or death.
Last edited:
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Well the simple fact remains that there are limits to all the amendments whether you agree with them or not. The sooner you realize that and accept it the better off you will be champ.