First Amendment

[DaveTN]

You also realize you are talking about committing a crime here right? Rule #3 of the TGO Code of Conduct.

Really? You want to hide behind a code of conduct? I’m not a moderator, don’t like to see threads locked, and didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, but I’m pretty sure that reopening a topic that has been locked and calling someone a mental case because you don’t like their comments is also a violation. This didn’t turn into a cop bashing thread as you hoped, but went another direction.

There are more Patriots here than cops so good luck with the results. You reopened this topic for drama; you got it.

I don’t think anyone has said anything yet to require the locking of this thread. As David once said he tends to let people look like fools rather than close a thread; that is what is happening right now.

[Monkeyman2500]

And while people think they can say anything they want under the guise of "freedom of speech" I will say they cannot. The protections afforded someone under the First Amendment is only there to protect the individual from the government, it does not protect them from another private party. Because I am not a government agency I can limit people's right to free speech on my property. If I don't like what you are saying I do not have to listen to it and can tell someone to either quit or leave my property. No one has the right to say whatever they want whenever they want, especially on private property.

And one must realize that even though they may be allowed to say what they want under the guise of "free speech" there are consequences for what they say, both good and bad, and there should be. One must weigh the consequences to determine if the personal reward of saying what they want outweighs the risks. For most people the risks are far too great to speak their mind most of the time. Everyone weighs those decisions every day and just because someone may have a right to say something does not mean they will not suffer the consequences for what they chose to say. Just because someone has the right to say something does not mean they are exempt from the consequences and if those consequences break the law then they will have to deal with their own set of consequences for their actions. I can guarantee there is not a single person on this board who speaks their mind 100% of the time without weighing the consequences.

Dolomite states it perfectly. Talking about flag burning and not expecting some threatening statements from veterans is ridiculous. OP you where looking for trouble on this post and have only made it worse with mental health insults. If you are serious at all it speaks to the severe lack of principles and personal values in today's society. Just because the law protects what you say does not make it right. The westboro church people come to mind. Used to be a saying "There's a time and place for everything" but if you pick that time at the wrong place it can get your as# kicked. When did fighting for something you believe in give you mental health issues?

[btq96r]

Anybody should be able to burn the flag as a form of speech.  I'm 99.9% sure I'll disagree with how they choose to convey their point, but they have the right to light it up as a means to do so if they choose.  Should they ask me if they think its a good idea, I'd tell them to do a quick risk assessment with regards to what could happen.  If someone wants to get physical as a response to flag burning, I have no sympathy for them when terms like assault and battery are read aloud in court as charges against them.  Big boy rules apply on both sides of this philosophical debate.

 

For myself, I have too much respect for freedom of speech to want flag burning to be illegal, and too much discipline to be goaded into a response towards those burning the flag.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Sure. But it isn't an opinion, it is a fact. You say you will assault someone without just cause, you are a danger to society. The end.

 

I would rather have Spots by my side to help me solve any problem than most others. He is not dangerous unless there is a need to be.

 

Funny how you talk about how flag burning is free speech yet when someone says something you don't like you say he should be committed. He has made no threats towards you so who are you to say he needs to be committed? As much as you seem to dislike Spots for what he has said you doing the exact same thing.

 

As I said their are consequences for everyone involved. If someone burns a flag and their ass gets beat then, right or wrong, that is a consequence. The person doing the beating will likely find themselves in jail for doing it and that is their consequence. If getting an ass beating is worth it to burn the flag then so be it. And if going to jail is worth beating the flag burners ass then so be it. The only person that can determine if it is worth it is the person suffering the consequences.

[LagerHead]

No I was referring to "I'm probably gonna get a little emotional and bust somebodies skull if they stomp that flag." That is premeditation of a crime. No specific victim but premeditation of a crime none the less.

 
That is not premeditation. Please stop accusing other members of being criminals.
 

Sure. But it isn't an opinion, it is a fact. You say you will assault someone without just cause, you are a danger to society. The end.

No, that's an opinion. If you're not sure of the difference, please let me know and I will gladly explain it. Even if you're a psychiatrist, i.e. hold an M.D., that's still an opinion. And THAT is a fact.

[Mike.357]

can anyone cite any instance where a flag burning ever really accomplished what the person holding the matches intended to accomplish?

[DaveTN]

can anyone cite any instance where a flag burning ever really accomplished what the person holding the matches intended to accomplish?

You mean like getting a Patriot arrested for stepping in and stopping them, or giving the race baiters something to whine about? Yes…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/20/playboy-posing-veteran-in-flag-scuffle-sets-off-debate-over-everything/

[Ted S.]

can anyone cite any instance where a flag burning ever really accomplished what the person holding the matches intended to accomplish?

 

Depends, if all they were wanting to do is burn a flag, they did what they wanted to do. Not everything is done for a reason. I burn stuff all the time, like logs, sticks, receipts, etc. I like burning stuff. It's all good fun till a greeny weenie catches you and tells you you're killing Gaia.

[Guest Spru]

Really? You want to hide behind a code of conduct? I’m not a moderator, don’t like to see threads locked, and didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, but I’m pretty sure that reopening a topic that has been locked and calling someone a mental case because you don’t like their comments is also a violation. This didn’t turn into a cop bashing thread as you hoped, but went another direction.

There are more Patriots here than cops so good luck with the results. You reopened this topic for drama; you got it.

I don’t think anyone has said anything yet to require the locking of this thread. As David once said he tends to let people look like fools rather than close a thread; that is what is happening right now.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I also didn't reopen the same topic...even though there is nothing in the CoC about doing so. Maybe you should read it again. I didn't call them a mental case, I said they needed to be evaluated because they were talking about crushing someone's skull because they were offended.

I didn't reopen a topic, the update came out and it made me think of the new topic of free speech and people threatening to break the law to suppress that right.

You are right. People who say they would assault people for saying something or expressing themselves does look the fool.

 

Dolomite states it perfectly. Talking about flag burning and not expecting some threatening statements from veterans is ridiculous. OP you where looking for trouble on this post and have only made it worse with mental health insults. If you are serious at all it speaks to the severe lack of principles and personal values in today's society. Just because the law protects what you say does not make it right. The westboro church people come to mind. Used to be a saying "There's a time and place for everything" but if you pick that time at the wrong place it can get your as# kicked. When did fighting for something you believe in give you mental health issues?

It isn't just veterans. But the point was to point out that vets are doing it too. The hypocrisy of fighting for someone's right to do it and then threatening to assault them for doing it. "Sure you can have that right...but only when I say so.". It wasn't an insult, it was an observation. He admitted to wanting to assault someone if they expressed themselves in a non-threatening way.
I am serious. There are other was to handle it though. Maybe using your own 1A to shame them. That is a non-violent answer to a non-violent problem and is not illegal. What they are doing may not be right in your own opinion but they are protected in doing so, even from you because of assault laws. Even Westboro has a right to do what they want. I may not like it but I'll defend their right to do it.
Fighting for something you believe in is one thing, actually fighting (assault) someone because of something non-violent is wrong.

 

I would rather have Spots by my side to help me solve any problem than most others. He is not dangerous unless there is a need to be.

 

Funny how you talk about how flag burning is free speech yet when someone says something you don't like you say he should be committed. He has made no threats towards you so who are you to say he needs to be committed? As much as you seem to dislike Spots for what he has said you doing the exact same thing.

 

As I said their are consequences for everyone involved. If someone burns a flag and their ass gets beat then, right or wrong, that is a consequence. The person doing the beating will likely find themselves in jail for doing it and that is their consequence. If getting an ass beating is worth it to burn the flag then so be it. And if going to jail is worth beating the flag burners ass then so be it. The only person that can determine if it is worth it is the person suffering the consequences.

Not dangerous unless there is a need to be? So being offended creates a need to be dangerous? That is what he said, because takes offense to a non-violent action he going to crush someone's skull.
I didn't say he should be committed because I don't like what he said. I said he needed to be evaluated because he was willing to cause bodily harm to someone that didn't threaten anyone. I'm not threatening to break any law so no, I'm not even coming close to what he is doing.

 

 
That is not premeditation. Please stop accusing other members of being criminals.
 

No, that's an opinion. If you're not sure of the difference, please let me know and I will gladly explain it. Even if you're a psychiatrist, i.e. hold an M.D., that's still an opinion. And THAT is a fact.

Really? Basically saying "I will commit this crime if someone does X" is not premeditation? Sounds exactly like premeditation to me. In fact that is the very definition of premeditated. To think it out beforehand. He took the time to write an online post about doing it so he thought about it.

Please tell me how it is an opinion that someone is wrong for physically harming another person without just cause.

[Guest Spru]

You know what. I am going to take it a step further. Spots is the definition of a terrorist...so is anyone else who uses the threat of harm to get their way. When a Muslim does it you all call it terrorism but when it is a patriot then it is ok? LMAO

He is just as bad the people who shot up Charlie Hebdo and the Texas draw Muhammad day event. He wants to cause bodily harm to someone because he was offended. He wants to censor them because he was offended. He wants to instill a fear in them because he was offended.
 

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

 

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

[TrickyNicky]

Big difference between hyperbole and premeditation. Also a big difference between taking away someones rights and giving them a well deserved kick in the crotch.

 

I bet if you tried rephrasing your question just a little bit you would most likely get the answer I think you you're looking for providing you're looking for a serious conversation.

 

The above is just juvenile. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by TrickyNicky

[Spots]

Nevermind. You aren't worth the time and effort to respond to this idiocy. You came looking for a fight and like an idiot I gave you one. Edited June 1, 2015 by Spots

[Lumber_Jack]

You know what. I am going to take it a step further. Spots is the definition of a terrorist...

You're a f***ing moron. Your opinion is worth as much as the dog shit I bagged from the yard earlier.

[TGO David]

This thread seems extremely useless. Closing it down and making note that so far I'm not seeing much firearms related content from the OP, but rather content intended to incite discord.

Not a good thing for me to be making note of.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk