really wonder what is wrong with people

[cuznjohn]

this is flag burning in VA.

http://www.fox8live.com/story/35768...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Kwalsh]

scumbags!!!!

 

[ARtraveler]

Could I add one more? :bowdown::bowdown:

A monument of the Ten Commandments was destroyed by a driver of a car less than a day after it was put up on the Capitol building grounds in Arkansas.

The same driver, did the same thing about three years ago in OK.

 

[ARtraveler]

And if you look closely at the camera image of the person...

 

[Bob Denman]

It's just amazing that these morons will misuse the very freedoms, that give them the right to do these sorts of things***...Freedoms that our armed forces have shed blood for! :gaah:


*** You can legally burn a flag, or bust up the Ten Commandments: just not ones that don't belong to you! nojoke

 

[oldguyinTX]

Let 'em go back where they came from, and burn THAT country's flag, and see what happens.

 

[UtahPete]

Could I add one more? :bowdown::bowdown:

A monument of the Ten Commandments was destroyed by a driver of a car less than a day after it was put up on the Capitol building grounds in Arkansas. The same driver, did the same thing about three years ago in OK.

The first one was (unlawfully) exercising his 1st amendment rights by destroying private property.
The second one was protesting the unconstitutional placement of a religious symbol on public lands by public officials (but that was the wrong way to do it).
Neither one was dishonoring veterans.

 

[Bob Denman]

:agree:

 

[vided]

Scumbag :cus::cus:
yes I'm shouting

 

[UtahPete]

Scumbag :cus::cus:
yes I'm shouting

I guess it goes without saying he'd better not do that to your porch flag...?

 

[Bob Denman]

nojoke Mine either... nojoke

 

[UtahPete]

nojoke Mine either... nojoke

I've got no problem with that. Have no use for people who steal or destroy another person's property.

 

[BitSlayer]

The second one was protesting the unconstitutional placement of a religious symbol on public lands by public officials (but that was the wrong way to do it).

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that second point. People have carried separation of church and state in an unintended direction. I believe the intent was the government may not institute a sanctioned religion such as was the case in England at the time. Anyway, not trying to start a religious discussion here.

 

[cuznjohn]

this is just a thought, if the cops find this guy, or someone knows him, what you do is give him a blanket party. that is you put a blanket over his head from behind so he doesn't know who the people are. then you knock him out, or tie him up but keep his head covered. never use your names. then put a pair of flag pants or shorts on him, then light them and walk away like he did. now i never said this, of offered any ideas on here.

 

[UtahPete]

this is just a thought, if the cops find this guy, or someone knows him, what you do is give him a blanket party. that is you put a blanket over his head from behind so he doesn't know who the people are. then you knock him out, or tie him up but keep his head covered. never use your names. then put a pair of flag pants or shorts on him, then light them and walk away like he did. now i never said this, of offered any ideas on here.

It's for offenses like this that I'd like to see us bring back into use the public stocks. Then, the public can express their displeasure in whatever way they deem appropriate short of maiming or killing the guy. There just is not enough opportunity to exert peer pressure on miscreants any more.

 

[UtahPete]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that second point. People have carried separation of church and state in an unintended direction. I believe the intent was the government may not institute a sanctioned religion such as was the case in England at the time. Anyway, not trying to start a religious discussion here.

1. I can accept that. Can you accept that the 2nd amendment was also meant to address the concern the colonies had for heavy-handed British rule at the time? If you look at the 3rd amendment it becomes plain as day.

2. That's probably just as well!

 

[BitSlayer]

1. I can accept that. Can you accept that the 2nd amendment was also meant to address the concern the colonies had for heavy-handed British rule at the time? If you look at the 3rd amendment it becomes plain as day.

2. That's probably just as well!

I absolutely agree with the 2nd amendment and am a strong believer in it. I also have not issue with the 3rd amendment. Both of those support the my point of a state sanctioned church at the time and their desire to not allow that in the colonies. Beyond that, I am not sure what your point is with tying the 2nd amendment to separation of church and state.

 

[vided]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7mJM2Gt3fA

 

[cuznjohn]

see it works

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

shouldn't this be a hate crime since it was not his flag to burn?