It's really sad that someone like that should turn around and try to shit on the very freedoms he was supposedly trying to protect.
Sounds noble doesn't it.
Why would a Constitutional amendment be required to return a right? Returning a right to the American people implies that the American people had the right and then lost it. However, there should be no need of an amendment to return the right because they never was an amendment to remove the right.
The framers of the Constitution granted the newly established government specific enumerated powers, and no others. The power to prohibit citizens from anything is not among those specific enumerated powers, hence the need for an amendment. Has Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady (USA-Ret.) ever pondered why the Constitution didn’t grant the government that power? If he had given it some thought he would have come to realize that the Constitution is not about the people, it is solely about government.
What does Brady think the 5,000 casualties he rescued were fighting for? One of the things was the freedom to have the right to take the decision to burn the nations flag or not burn the nations without interference by the government. I have no fondness for those whom feel the need to burn their flag but by ballot or force, I will protect their right to do so.
1) Burn, desecrate, remove, steal, or destroy the confederate flag = EVIL, ANTI-SOUTHERN, ANTI-AMERICAN, HATE CRIME. Only "Marxists" would allow it. In ALL cases, it MUST be stopped IMMEDIATELY!
2) Burn, desecrate, remove, steal, or destroy the American flag = Freedom of speech. Must be allowed and completely tolerated. Anyone, who tries to in any way interfere with this "right" is "ruining" the constitution.
And they still believe these beliefs make them "patriots", even after Sept. 11th.
Sad.