no, it may hurt the FEELINGS of some, but that is different than physical harm

It does more then hurt feelings.

such as?

It could incite a killing.

Why do people insist pushing other's triggers? Would they do it if the law didn't protect them from physical harm?

I doubt it as generally these people are cowards at heart.

When you incite this kind of passionate anger in people you are bound to feel wrath. The law won't always be an effective protectorate.

It would be wise to realize that those who feel so much passion towards Old Glory have already volunteered their life for her.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think it's smart to poke a pit bull with a stick?
Would you let your children do it?

I guess we have different expectations of REASONABLE reactions


if someone HITS someone or something, I expect it to hit back

if someone destroys their own property, I dont expect them to be killed for it

ANYTHING can incite killing in this day and age, but that still doesnt mean people shouldnt have the legal choice to do what they want with their hard earned money or the things that it purchases,,,so long as they dont INFRINGE upon the right of anyone else

agreeing with ms. dragoness

Y'all are insulting and unappreciative.

Exactly how? If those who claim this can come up with a good legal argument and evidence that would pass muster in a court of law, I would urge them to take this case all the way to Supreme Court and settle his dispute once and for all.

Obviously, there is nothing in the Constitution about prohibiting it-- probably for very good reason-- because a recent attempt at passing a Constutional Amendment failed miserably. Just my opinion, but I would say the Founders and courts all down through history have NOT been swayed by 'those passionate about America'. Why? Maybe because both those Founders AND most of the courts deciding these cases knew that safeguarding the rights of minority dissenters outweighed those whose buttons were pushed.

Otherwise, the Rule of Law would disintegrate into nothing more than contests betweens mobs, with the 'winners' forcing their 'passions' on everyone under threat of superior force.

And we all know what happens when Might Makes Right.


-Kerry O.

No sir, I am exercising my First Amendment right to free speech and the time-honored hallmark of a free people to disagree with the majority using nothing but words and reasoning.

Isn't that what you fought for ? "I may disagree with what you say, even vehemently, but I will defend your right to say it to the death". I've heard MANY a vet say this.

-Kerry O.

There are lots of ways to impress the freedoms you enjoy.

Being disrespectful to Old Glory and what it means to others isn't being appreciative or deserving of them.

The penalty for desecrating Old Glory should be a loss of citizenship.

Well, then break bread with those fire-breathing ultra-conservatives and get the Constitutional Amendment passed. That really is your only remedy under the Constitution and rule of law.

Just be careful what you ask for-- we all know what happens when the camel gets his nose under the tent flap. You might get a LOT more that you DIDN'T bargain for!

If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll see that theme over and over again. Most often one of the three authors refers to such remedies as 'mischief by the majority'.

-Kerry O.

Call it what you want but it's disrespectful and unappreciative.

Beware when you desicrate her that there are many who are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.
Are you willing to give as much for your disrespect.
You might find one day that you can not hide behind the law.

Call it what YOU want, but it's not yet illegal and punishable by LEGAL authority-- and judges duly sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America have said it over and over again.

And as usual when we have these differences of opinion, some people can't separate the principle from the person expounding on it. NOWHERE did I say that _I_ would desecrate a flag-- I merely pointed out to you that you have NO legal grounds to take the law into your own hands. It's nothing more than Frontier Justice to kill or maim someone who is acting inside the law while engaging in an act of protest.

Are YOU willing to make the ultimate sacrifice-- commit murder and suffer the legal punishments for your actions under the rule of law? Because that's what we are essentially talking about here-- the Rule of Law, NOT to license mayhem for those who think the Argument From Intimidation is a bedrock right they can use to enforce their view of the world OUTSIDE the rule of law.

No doubt Timothy McVeigh thought he was a great patriot when he committed mass murder. The courts held otherwise.


-Kerry O.

careful worshipping false idols,,


care more about the people it represents than the representation itself,,,,,or you may end up with a deadly irony/hypocrisy


the flag was created by man, it neither breathes, eats or sleeps, it doesnt protect or harm anyone, it is a choice to revere it but it certainly shouldnt be that such reverence is a qualifier for citizenship or that not choosing to revere it should qualify as criminal


I dont revere OBJECTS, and it would be a sad day when anyone felt that was reason enough to consider me less human/american/decent than anyone else

It was against the law until 1989 to desecrate Old Glory.

It was made legal due to the efforts of only a few Americans and a case brought before the SC. It was not put to a vote by the majority. It was made legal on a technicality of language.

In fact an Amendment to the US Constitution has been proposed and a majority did support it.

On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.

Then in hypocritical fashion,

The Rainbow Flag

In 1999 three protesters tore down and burned a Rainbow Flag, standing for gay rights, from the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. The flag had been flying in honor of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month which had just been declared by President Bill Clinton. The flag burners were arrested by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and charged with misdemeanor counts of arson and disorderly conduct.

The flag is nothing but cloth and not worth dying over.

To respect this country and the people in it does not require a flag or fighting for a flag.

I can just hear our "New Military" leaders in a few years,

You may burn Old Glory sir, but do not lay a hand on The Rainbow!

wouldnt the crime there be defacement of property that was not ones own PRIVATE property, not necessarily having to do with it being a flag or not?(you did say they tore it down from the OHIO STATEHOUSE)


similar to going up and setting fire to the bushes, the crime wouldnt really be about the BUSHES, but the fire

They weren't charged for burning a flag. They were charged for illegal burning of anything and obviously they weren't acting appropriately while doing it.

Showing that lighting fires maybe an illegal act and acting badly while doing it might be worth a ticket.