Not if it burns down your house next to mine, my business OR THE CITY I PAID TAXES TO BUILD AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT I PAID WITH TAXES TO RESPOND!
No I am not. I think I'd made that clear. Those who'd burn the flag in protest of those freedoms you enjoy are the selfsame ones who'd as soon see your loss of them in favor of their own Utopia. In your opinion, is their position "protected speech"? or do you see it as a potential threat to your freedom? If not, then why not? You'd not so readily afford an avowed enemy of the US the same latitude, would you? Or is the willingness to grant "freedom of speech" protection to burning the flag as protest of America's freedoms a guise for a measure of cowardice to protect them? Exactly how much protection should we offer those who would use our rights and freedoms as tools to attack and destroy us? IMO, I'd say we give them exactly what they wish - we should offer them NONE of the protected freedoms they so sorely hate.
Persons of greater courage than we have and do expend extreme sacrifice to preserve those freedoms represented by the Stars and Bars and those willing to burn her in protest of what she represents does so in contempt of those who have paid and will pay the price necessary to preserve her. Some would claim those freedoms also envelope that of burning the flag. I simply disagree. I believe coverage under those freedoms should end with the ignition of the match.
Lighting the fire isn't the threshold of contempt, the mindset behind it is. Lighting the fire is just a manifestation of the "heart". Although I don't think an amendment is necessary, I think lawfully banning the burning just drives an enemy underground whereas otherwise they could be publicly marked where appropriate measures could possibly be taken.