1st Amendment...just a reminder

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

God Bless the USA

[ 03-24-2003, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Flatfish]

I am happy and fortunate to live in the U.S.A. The first ammendment is a fine thing. But without the 2nd, there would not be a first. Kinda funny though. A lot of folks( not finger pointing, just my own observations) who love their right to free speech, HATE the 2nd ammendment( thats the "keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed upon" for those who slept during the 7th grade).

I voted for our President because Mr. Gore wants to infringe upon my 2nd ammendment rights. And yes, I am one of those "Pry it from my cold dead hands" whackos.

Mark and the dog.

[skrimmy]

Shane, is there a particular point you're trying to make?

Mark - [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Irie1]

here here! I got the point as well

[ 03-24-2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Irie1 ]

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[crabbait]

Well said, Shane.

Flatfish - I agree on the 2nd Ammendment as well. Come and get them!

[Flatfish]

Amazing Crab, that's 3 things we have in common-

1-labs

2-Ducks

3-Keep and bear arms

Mark and the dog.

Originally posted by skrimmy:
Shane, is there a particular point you're trying to make?

Mark - [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Absolutely there is a point I'm trying to make skrimmy. Some people believe that a person doesn't have the right to present a dissenting view. They believe people have no right to protest or disagree with the decisions our leaders make. Read some of the name calling that has gone on on this board when describing anti-war protesters.
As long as a person remains law-abiding and does not infringe upon the rights of others then they shouldn't be looked down upon by those that disagree with them.
BTW I also agree with the 2nd Amendment

[ 03-25-2003, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[feisty's wife]

Folks, the primary reason for the 2nd amend., which I also cherish, as I do my "toys", is to keep a peaple free of gov. chainss.....hmmmmmm

[skrimmy]

Thanks Shane, we're on the same page then. I couldn't agree more. I don't necessarily agree with the viewpoints of the protestors, but hey, they have that right. I just wasn't sure you weren't standing up for the splinter anarchist groups and their right to do what they do. I think your wording clarifies that though. Thanks!

[Flatfish]

So if it is OK to protest (as long as nobody is breaking the law ), then is it OK for me to think that Mike M. is a "fathead, bleeding heart, ****** pinko, flag burning, anti american but I love the money, double standard trying to make my name a household thing so I can make more money, jerk". Is it OK if I say that? Cause that's what I think.

Anti war protesters in downtown PDX?? As long as they do not stop traffic( think about it) or disrupt other folks' days, then fine. But if you take time from me and my wife cause you think it will help the world in any way, you are wrong. If you take time from me and my family, you are voilating my right to live in any way that is legal. Kinda like spam and phone sales at dinner time. It lowers my quality of life.

If you take money from the pockets of downtown business because of your protesting, why are you not removed? You are taking money from the already poor tax base in this country. And we all know that you do not steal from the I.R.S. right?

Mark and the 1st and 2nd loving dog-arf arf bang bang.

[Firedog]

Originally posted by Stew:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

God Bless the USA

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree Stew, even though I disagree with the anti war protests. I respect their right to do so in a "Peaceable manor" From what I heard yesterdays protest was just that but the one last week wasn't. I think that is the issue people are upset with, oportunist's using a war protest to go out and cause trouble. Keep them civil and you won't see the trouble. Stopping traffic and trying to shut business down is not peaceful. Hitting police officers with bats is not peaceful. I totaly disagree with the fact that Burning the American Flag should be protected under the first amendment. This is a crime and shows total disrespect for our country.

Flatfish, excellent post, along the lines of the tax base, not only are they causing loss of revenue in the form of lost income but also in the cost of police protection. Double hit.

[ 03-25-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: firedog ]

[skrimmy]

FLATFISH - [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Well said.

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Stew:
Read some of the name calling that has gone on on this board when describing anti-war protesters.
As long as a person remains law-abiding and does not infringe upon the rights of others then they shouldn't be looked down upon by those that disagree with them.
BTW I also agree with the 2nd Amendment

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">But Stew, isn't this part of the first amendment as well? When they are calling names and saying what they really think about protestors, they are merely exercising their own first amendment rights.

happybrew

[The Fishing Geek]

There is a big difference between peacefully protesting the deployment of US troops in a foreign land and labelling everyone who believes the same way with a derogatory term, no matter how protected they are by the First Amendment.

[montster303]

I understand that American Flags were ordered to be taken off firetrucks in portland. I just heard it on the radio, and haven't seen the "official" statements and whatnot....(but i'm sure someone can point me in that direction?) What i understand is that they were afraid of attacks from antiprotestors. (meaning the few that believe violence is the best way to demonstrate peace----terrorists in my opinion) I believe that your rights stop when they begin to infringe on someone else's rights. hopefully they will be prosecuted for their crimes.
had to vent....thanks
God Bless the USA and all Her troops protecting Us!!

[Firedog]

Monster, I alos had heard that on the radio and when I opened the paper it is on the front page of the metro section. This irritates me a great deal, we fly our flags with pride to support our country and our fallen brothers from 9/11. From what I got out of the article was that the Downtown Companies were told to remove them because some situations had come up that were threatening during a couple of the protests. This is not free speach by the protesters,these are threats against us as firefighters for flying the flag. The flag flys on every Portland Fire Bureau Fire engine and Truck. We also have flags on our helemts. We do so with pride.

[Firedog]

Here is the article from oregon live

Portland firefighters ordered to remove flags

03/25/03

STEVE SUO

Portland Fire Bureau officials Monday ordered U.S. flags removed from downtown fire engines, concerned that their presence might provoke dangerous confrontations with antiwar demonstrators.

"This policy will continue until we no longer have sustained close contact interaction with protesters and demonstrators," Deputy Chief Gary Warrington wrote in a memo to the city's three downtown companies.

"Protesters have threatened our personnel and are burning flags in the street," the memo said. "We do not want extremists attacking our apparatus or our personnel."

The order immediately proved incendiary with firefighters, who angrily complained.

"Taking the flag down hits a lot of nerves with a lot of people," said Tom Chamberlain, president of the Portland Firefighters Association. "It's part of our uniform. There's a lot of pride that goes with being a firefighter."

Chamberlain said union officials would seek compromise guidelines that would protect firefighters while allowing them to display the flag under some circumstances.

The flag first became a major hot button in the bureau after the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed hundreds in the New York Fire Department.

Like many civilians, members of Portland fire companies spontaneously began flying the flag from rearview mirrors and other parts of their trucks. But some firefighters, sensitive to protocol, thought that particular presentation of the nation's colors was improper and irreverent. Top bureau officials, including Warrington, debated the issue, researched etiquette and issued a policy explicitly allowing flags on trucks.

But Thursday, fire crews were on hand for a downtown sit-in that featured several flag burnings. Warrington said he decided to issue the new policy Monday after talking to some of the crews working that night.

Quickly, the phone calls began. One civilian questioned his patriotism. That hurt, Warrington said.

"My position is not, 'We should bow to those people, we should be worried about them, we should let them win,' " Warrington said. "That is not it at all."

"I absolutely want to stand up and support the flag," he said. "All I was trying to do was keep our members from being put in harm's way."

Peace activists were no happier with the decision than firefighters.

"There are many people who oppose this war who are classic patriots who revere the flag as a symbol of freedom and democracy," said Will Seaman of the Portland Peaceful Response Coalition.

Seaman said he wondered whether the bureau's real intention was to foster, rather than defuse, tension between firefighters and marchers.

By the end of the day, the firefighters' anger had tempered somewhat.

Chamberlain, the union president, said he respected Warrington's intent and said some crews working at last week's protest told him, "Things could have turned ugly." In fact, a fire commander on the scene ordered flags removed that night.

"The fire bureau and the union should sit down and come up with a consistent policy that allows folks to fly the flags and come up with parameters for circumstances under which you don't fly them," Chamberlain said. Steve Suo: 503-221-8288; stevesuo@news.oregonian.com

[ 03-25-2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: firedog ]

[montster303]

Thanks, Firedog....

I just saw on KATU news that the order to take them down was reversed. GOOD FOR THEM!! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Kruechief]

This situation over our flag breaks my heart and makes me so mad my eyes well up tears. :depressed:

If anyone harms a fire fighter they should be publicly hanged, period!

That would be one of the most despicable things and should be considered an act of terrorism.

God Bless the underpaid public servants who risk all for each of us and our Flag. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Krue
I am :blush: by government officials who allow a minute percentage of the population to control public policy!!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[Kruechief]

OK, reverse the government thing... :blush: I guess Vera was late to work today.

I guess they didn't submit to the Anarchists.

Krue [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[Stratocaster]

Support one, support all. Are you listening A.C.L.U.? (2nd amendment) You cant pick and choose.

[ 03-25-2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[Firedog]

I also saw on the news that commissioner Sten reversed the order. Glad to hear it.

[happybrew]

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
There is a big difference between peacefully protesting the deployment of US troops in a foreign land and labelling everyone who believes the same way with a derogatory term, no matter how protected they are by the First Amendment.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Absolutely. However, the difference is not in rights or in facts, but in manners. We all know good manners when we see them, and we know bad manners when we see them. Sometimes people think that the passion they feel or the justness they perceive in their cause justifies engaging in bad manners. They are wrong on that count. And they are on both sides of the fence.

happybrew

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by happybrew:
However, the difference is not in rights or in facts, but in manners. We all know good manners when we see them, and we know bad manners when we see them. Sometimes people think that the passion they feel or the justness they perceive in their cause justifies engaging in bad manners. They are wrong on that count. And they are on both sides of the fence.

happybrew [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh, how right you are! Happybrew, you are my hero.

[Born to be Wild]

Stew,

I think the 1rst admendment protects the Ku Klux Klan also.

Sad.

[BonkBonkBonk]

Originally posted by Flatfish:
Amazing Crab, that's 3 things we have in common-

1-labs

2-Ducks

3-Keep and bear arms

Mark and the dog.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">hey, ill to those! :smile:
in these ....patriotic?..days, its no longer cool to exersize your 1st rights anymore if it goes aginst the partyline..something ive never liked about americans, who seem to want fre3edom of speech only when they agree with it
as far as people protesting by blocking traffic, civil disobediance ect, im im not sure if i really have a problem with it...this country has a severe problem with political apathy, and if thats what it takes to get people active...*shrugs* but on the other hand, some people just go to far, and need to move to a socialist state like cuba or china..

[OldRedSled]

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


FireDog,

is there a PHONE number i can call to the portland City Fire Officials public relations office to complaign about even considering that order. I am SO SICK of panhandling to these little *Spits in the streets. FINE they can march, Fine they can carry signs the first amendment grants them that. But when moves are made pander to that SIGNIFICANT minority of voices then that angers me. WE are so overly concerned whith a little discontent by the few, that we ignore the vast many who are like this country.
WHO CARES IF THEY DONT LIKE IT!!!!!! I am betting that they dont like any thing about this country and i assure you they dont vote, so to hell with them. By pandering to them we encourage them even further. Its there right to march and speak, its my right to IGNORE THEM and the CITIES DUTY to follow the will of the MAJORITY who want flags on those trucks perminantly!!!!

If the city is concerned about violence, and ive seen the average hippie down town i doubt the firemen would really have much trouble with a few of them, then the city should proscute all offenses to the FULLEST extent of the law!!!!
Break a window thats destruction of proptery 30 days in jail, attack government proptery that's a year, or attack a city offical (police, fire, EMS,ect) thats a FELONY assault 5 years. These jerks do this crap because they know they will get arrested and left out in the morning consquence free. Make it known there are rules and punishments for breaking those rules then they'll move there buts back into the park where they belong, and out of my dam way!!!

ORS

sorry for the angry post but crap like that really chaps my hide.

[ 03-25-2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: OldRedSled ]

[Firedog]

ORS, youve got mail

[The Fishing Geek]

Order reversed.

Originally posted by DepoeBayDan:
Stew,

I think the 1st admendment protects the Ku Klux Klan also.

Sad.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah it does Dan...so what do you think? Suspend it if it doesn't fall into what the majority opinion is? That would indeed be sad.

[Born to be Wild]

Tough call Stew!