What did she mean by this?

>“I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”

Just emotional feminine verbal diarrhea that carries no real meaning

giving women rights was the worst thing america has did,it all went downhill from there

"Fuck Bush!"

What about this do you idiots object to? The Constitution is far more important than the flag. Flag burners are morons but people that want to prosecute them are far worse.

What about people who burn both?

What about people who burn neither?

>we should base supreme court decisions on laws in foreign countries, so progressive!
the constitution was written by WHITE MALES

But she's right. Obviously burning the flag is a scummy fucking thing to do, but the Constitution is much more important than the flag.

How about we let people who want to burn the flag burn the flag, then wrap themselves in said burning flag. And the people who want to burn the constitution will do the same. Then, once the fire is out, whoever is still alive is declared the winner.

how about u dont burn either, u dumb bitch

the message is obvious and she is 1000% right

Claiming to be patriotic while destroying the constituion is fucked

How about someone who burns neither?

Sounds good to me.

most of america would gladly trade their 1st and 2nd ammendment rights if it meant some children's lives not being shot to death or people not being offended.america doesnt even deserve a constitution anymore

She's saying she would prefer people who use the constitutional protections to their full extent, even to the point of shitting on the country than to someone who would make a huge deal about protecting the country while destroying the constitution in the process.

I'm partial to agree, tbqh.

I think it mean that they prefer they prefer
doing something because they can > doing something unconstitutional for the sake of the country

Are you basing that on your feels, I take it? It seems like we have yet to give up either yet, and the vast majority of Americans besides the whiny fucks you see on the news are okay with it.

The 4th amendment on the other hand? Well, there is a little work to be done there imo.

haha fuck the first amendment and fuck women too

well then u will love when niggers will vote to execute all white people in the future. as long as muh constitution amirite?

She's against Hillary Clinton's proposal to ban the burning of a flag.

>something something second amendment

I'd also like to take this time to say: you have no fucking idea how excited I am for Russia to annex the hell out of you buffer states. Enjoy posting under a Russian flag in the future lel

She means the principles behind the flag, which include free speech, are more important than the physical fabric of the flag itself, which is more often than not just a cloak for a tyrant's true agenda.

>implying i already dont have a plan to leave when that happens
dont forget to wrap the somali dick in the constitution when they will make white genocide legal

im basing that off the attitude of most americans,you should start living in reality and not the liberal fantasy world you are stuck in.this countrys future will never belong to the liberals,and the gun owners will make sure of that one way or another

>if people are willing to sacrifice their freedoms for some security, they deserve neither

>implying the Russians won't have crossed and closed off your teensy postage stamp country before you can escape.

No worries, we have Trump and his tiny hands to deal with that lol. Bantz aside stay safe, Latvianon. The next couple years are gonna be even weirder than this one, it seems.

gun owners support the constitution. if you can override one amendment, you can sure override another.

THEYRE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME

ONE IS A SYMBOL OF THE OTHER

Why? You might as well not have 1 without the other.

We are literally saying the same thing:

the vast majority of Americans do not wish to relinquish their 1st and 2nd amendment rights. The folks on """""""""real""""""""" news networks simply give this impression, even though it doesn't reflect reality.

However, I find your implication that the "2nd amendment people" will do an end around on democracy somewhat disheartening.

How does it support our argument that people should have access to firearms, if you also say that if you let them keep the weapons they'll overturn the democracy (ie, what the majority of the society desires) if it does something they don't like?

Why even have a constitution at that point?

>banning flag burning
>not similar to hate speech laws and court decisions in foreign countries
do you want this country to be europe 2.0?

eat shit libtards

"Liberals" are those who want to defend the constitution? The constitution says you can't ban speech, then you can't ban burning the flag. You suck it up like an actual man instead of being a whiny little bitch. You stop being a hypocrite and take it like you demand of the Muslim world when a Qur'an is burned. You respond with a fuck you too, buddy, of if you've matured enough, you go and you ask the guy why he would do that because that's how people work shit out when they grow the FUCK up. And you stop overreacting like a whiny triggered little sjw who doesn't realize that there are more important things than pieces of cloth or paper. If I had a place to do it and the materials, I'd barbecue a Qur'an and American flag at the same fucking time because they're both just stuff and getting upset over burning stuff is just fucking retarded. No seriously. If any of y'all are serious grow the fuck up.

penalizing someone for hurting the symbol hurts the real thing.

Arguably a lot of their arguments on "banning speech" (although I don't believe there are any new laws with regard to things you can't say, just whiny people on twitter) are more along the lines of saying you're doing the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater (which clarifies that the first amendment isn't unlimited in scope) by creating an "unsafe environment".

Of course it's bs false equivalency, but you're not looking at this rationally either m80. Burning flags is legal, the govt banning speech is illegal (unless it falls within the realm of inciting violence like trying to start a riot, etc).

Fuck the constitution! Fuck this yankee nation, too!

>hating America is not the same as hating it's government oligarchy
>If you hate America so much you want to burn the flag you are a essentially traitor
>If you hate the President so much you wish him dead you are not a traitor as long as you dont go down that path beyond temporary anger

As a pretty anti-fed American, I am starting to side with the 3 strike flag burning rule with citizenship revoking for those who strike out. You can pick 2 times in your life to burn the flag and never have a problem, choose them wisely.

So if it offends somebody enough you can ban it basically? Because offending enough people would result in a safety crisis because people can't be expected to exercise restraint and control themselves. Which means what you've effectively done is legalized killing me for offending you because I should have known better not to offend a crowd of idiots. No. I got it. So let's all draw Muhammad now and pretend we're all different from them when they burn our flags. You hate them, they hate you. It's stupid. You're the same. Once you realize that you might start to look at life differently.