Beaver County, PA Sheriff Says No Carrying Guns Where Others Might Assemble!

[Venator]

imported post

streetdoc wrote:

I served 20 years in the Marines to defend everybodies right to do those things in expressing their feelings even though I may not agree with them. I will still standby and protect them in doing so,and express my rights also. I wont support somebody that is trying to take away my rights.I may protect them but Iwont support them.This is what makes this country great!

This guys get's it.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

Amen to the protect and not support.
There is definately something for a small well organized military.
Just wish we could trim down the bigger beurocratic forces also.

Where is the press calling for the arrest of papparatzie who violate
someones constitutions right to privacy.
Where was the call to prosecute dan rather for forgury. Violateing bush's
right to face his accuser.

Where is the evidence that Mtn Jack Nolan used his gun to silence another
person in the crowd.

The response should have been... I'm an American", not your under arrest.
but "thank you sir, we will inform the p*ss ant wimp to get a life and enjoy the park."

Now both parties can enjoy there rights in peace.
I would prefer a sumons for the occuser for attempting to panic a crowd, peacefully
assembling.

 

[SIGfreed]

imported post

Carnivore, I have read through all of your post on the last few pages. Now I must ask you to replace "Flag burning" with "the open carry of a firearm" in your comments and see what kind of a taste it leaves in your mouth.

This forum was started to help advise people of their God given, Constitutionally guaranteed "right to bear arms" not discuss which ones should be allowed or prevented.

If you wish to defend our countries Constitution, you must defend the whole thing. If you are not willing to do this, then you do not agree with what the flag (which you so violently want to defend the desecration of) stands for.

 

[Mack 12ga.]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

.

I don't condone flag burning, but if that is the only way you feel you can express yourself, then go ahead! I will stand by your side, call you an idiot and protect you and your right if need be..But you try and take my rights away and I will surely beat you down like any other.

Sorry burning of OUR GREAT FLAG is not a right, its arson plain and simple, the Constitution says free speech not expression, if you want to stand on the corner and run your mouth about how you hate this country then that is free speech, If you burn anything then that is arson.


Remember this old slogan(America-Love it or leave it! )

 

[Mack 12ga.]

imported post

And if the act of buning the US Flag is free speech, then me kicking the ever loving shit outa you for doing it, is my free speech, and should also be protected.

 

[Butlerite]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Look, I brought up the burning of the flag as a point. You wine and cry about this man standing up for his rights and how unfairly he was treated, but you are ready to trample someone for doing the same thing, but instead of doing it with a gun, they do it with a flag.

I don't condone flag burning, but if that is the only way you feel you can express yourself, then go ahead! I will stand by your side, call you an idiot and protect you and your right if need be..But you try and take my rights away and I will surely beat you down like any other.

Just in case some of you missed it, you already condoned doing the same thing LEO's threaten us with when they catch us OC'ing. "Sure it's legal, but don't let me catch you doing it...There will be hell to pay. I don't care if its legal."

Makes me want to rinse my mouth out and feel ashamed for calling you countrymen. :banghead:

+100

 

[HungSquirrel]

imported post

Mack 12ga. wrote:

Sorry burning of OUR GREAT FLAG is not a right, its arson plain and simple, the Constitution says free speech not expression, if you want to stand on the corner and run your mouth about how you hate this country then that is free speech, If you burn anything then that is arson.


Remember this old slogan(America-Love it or leave it! )

Not if the flag belongs to the person burning it, and he burns it in a safe manner.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

SIGfreed wrote:

Carnivore, I have read through all of your post on the last few pages. Now I must ask you to replace "Flag burning" with "the open carry of a firearm" in your comments and see what kind of a taste it leaves in your mouth.

This forum was started to help advise people of their God given, Constitutionally guaranteed "right to bear arms" not discuss which ones should be allowed or prevented.

If you wish to defend our countries Constitution, you must defend the whole thing. If you are not willing to do this, then you do not agree with what the flag (which you so violently want to defend the desecration of) stands for.

The only exact comparison I can see in your request is that I won't allow someone to come to my personal property and disarm me either without a fight.. As for OC among the general population, well I have now placed myself in someone elses Jurisdiction ie. local law enforcement/county Sheriff/State police, and their authority in uniform and on the job now trumps my power to control my surroundings, I might not agree with an officers request to remove a sidearm and return it to my vehicle, but I do have the right to call 911 and ask for another officer to be dispatched to asess the scenario and as fruitless as that may turn out to be, I will always respect a lawfull order from a uniformed officer. Once the situation is difused and I'm on my way I may opt to folow up through other avenues. But I will not stand and argue with a Uniformed officer, just like I won't stand and Argue with a business owner who has a sign on his front door (No concealed firearms or deadly weapons allowed)

Now. any other jon/jane doe that comes along and tells me that I should go hide my firearm and get it out of his/her presence out in the general public, can kiss off until they make the effort and call an officer and have that officer make the judgement call, now if that officer suggest that I disarm, I'll either do so or remove myself from the scenario, which ever is most convenient for me. ALL THAT SAID, when I do finally get the holster I want to carry my little 1903 Colt hammerless, you can be rest assured that I'll also be armed with a barrage of all the local ordinances, countyand state laws that will affect me through out my travels, because if I've learned nothing else on this site, ya'll have definitely reinforced what I already knew ... There are humans out there in uniform with a job to uphold local/county/and state laws that don't have a clue..

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

...freedom of speech can be spoken or written, if someone thinks they can act out their freedom of speech by burning the American/Christian/or even a P.O.W. flag in my presence, then they'll get to see me act out my freedom of speech also !

That almost sound like a threat of physical violence.


Mac 12ga. wrote:

Sorry burning of OUR GREAT FLAG is not a right, its arson plain and simple, the Constitution says free speech not expression, if you want to stand on the corner and run your mouth about how you hate this country then that is free speech, If you burn anything then that is arson.

Much as I dislike the burning of the flag (regardless of where it's made), it is most certainly a right protected under our Constitution. Calling the (wholesale) burning of the flag "arson", is like calling OC "DC", or "DTP".

Of course, your welcome to cite the law where burning the flag in and of itself is arson.

Mac 12ga. wrote:

And if the act of buning the US Flag is free speech, then me kicking the ever loving @#$% outa you for doing it, is my free speech, and should also be protected.

You have little concept of rights (at least under our Constitution, maybe you'd prefer the constitution of some country like Iraq, or the UN's), and that lack of knowledge or understanding is a tool of tyrants. This type of attitude is what''s bringing this country down. As reprehensible as someone's act of burning the flag is (and let's be honest, we're not talking about them burning 'your' flag, or burning it in "your" yard), in this country, it is their right. It's little different than having an anti-war speach at the Lincoln Memorial. You want to stop something that is offensive and reprehensible to you, much like some people want to stop other things that are likewise to them. Things like the American flag, "in God we trust", the Bible, people who work on Sunday,... etc. By your logic, people should also have a right to assault others for those actions, symbols, or concepts.

Assaulting someone for exercising their right to free speech is not (nor should it be, unless you want to live in a totalitarian society) a right. I don't like seeing the gangbangers dealing drugs off the park corner across the street, but that doesn't give me the right to sit on top of my roof with a rifle and start picking them off (and them dealing drugs isn't even a protected right). I don't much care for tattoos or body piercings either, but that doesn't give me the right to assault someone with them, or burn down the local tattoo/ piercing palor.

Another thing to think about is that, "the attitude your displaying is one that gives gun owners the "loose cannon" image", by you wanting to take matters "into your own hands".

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

The only exact comparison I can see in your request is that I won't allow someone to come to my personal property and disarm me either without a fight..

The topic isn't about being disarmed on "your personal property". Jack had just as much right to be armed (openly) where He was, as you on your property.

Carnivore wrote:

As for OC among the general population, well I have now placed myself in someone elses Jurisdiction ie. local law enforcement/county Sheriff/State police, and their authority in uniform and on the job now trumps my power to control my surroundings, …

Their “authority in uniform and on the job” does not trump your rights. Jack wasn't trying to "control his surroundings". Your obfuscating the issue.


Carnivore wrote:

I might not agree with an officers request to remove a sidearm and return it to my vehicle, but I do have the right to call 911 and ask for another officer to be dispatched to asess the scenario and as fruitless as that may turn out to be, I will always respect a lawfull order from a uniformed officer. Once the situation is difused and I'm on my way I may opt to folow up through other avenues. But I will not stand and argue with a Uniformed officer, just like I won't stand and Argue with a business owner who has a sign on his front door (No concealed firearms or deadly weapons allowed )

Where does it say anything about Jack arguing with the officers (or them asking him to remove it and return it to his vehicle)? The reports I’ve read are that they asked him why he had a gun, and when he told them “because I’m an American”, they then placed him under arrest. It doesn’t sound like your above comments relate in any way to what happened to Jack. Thanks for telling us how you would handle an imaginary situation that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Carnivore wrote:

… Now. any other jon/jane doe that comes along and tells me that I should go hide my firearm and get it out of his/her presence out in the general public, can kiss off until they make the effort and call an officer and have that officer make the judgement call,…

Substitute that with the burning of the flag again. Both are rights which other citizens have no right to impede. And please don’t bring up the “not on my property” argument. We all know that’s not what’s being discussed here. Bringing up such arguments only comes across as a duplicitous attempt to (further) obfuscate the topic.

Furthermore, while it is the officer's judgment call to make, that officer is also accountable to certain laws, and can't just make up his own rules to fit his personal agenda.


Carnivore wrote:

…now if that officer suggest that I disarm, I'll either do so or remove myself from the scenario, which ever is most convenient for me. …

You have just as much right to disarm, as the officer does to “ask” you to disarm. However, that does not mean that others are under any obligation to do so. Just because you choose to so easily surrender your rights, doesn’t mean others should follow suit. The officer can "ask", "request", or "suggest" anything he wants, but that doesn't legally obligate a citizen to comply with that suggestion. An officer can approach me and (without cause) ask for my ID. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to give it to him (especially if I'm not in possession of any ID at the time). There's a difference between a lawful order, and a personal request.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

The only exact comparison I can see in your request is that I won't allow someone to come to my personal property and disarm me either without a fight..

The topic isn't about being disarmed on "your personal property". Jack had just as much right to be armed (openly) where He was, as you on your property.

Carnivore wrote:

As for OC among the general population, well I have now placed myself in someone elses Jurisdiction ie. local law enforcement/county Sheriff/State police, and their authority in uniform and on the job now trumps my power to control my surroundings, …

Their “authority in uniform and on the job” does not trump your rights. Jack wasn't trying to "control his surroundings". Your obfuscating the issue.


Carnivore wrote:

I might not agree with an officers request to remove a sidearm and return it to my vehicle, but I do have the right to call 911 and ask for another officer to be dispatched to asess the scenario and as fruitless as that may turn out to be, I will always respect a lawfull order from a uniformed officer. Once the situation is difused and I'm on my way I may opt to folow up through other avenues. But I will not stand and argue with a Uniformed officer, just like I won't stand and Argue with a business owner who has a sign on his front door (No concealed firearms or deadly weapons allowed )

Where does it say anything about Jack arguing with the officers (or them asking him to remove it and return it to his vehicle)? The reports I’ve read are that they asked him why he had a gun, and when he told them “because I’m an American”, they then placed him under arrest. It doesn’t sound like your above comments relate in any way to what happened to Jack. Thanks for telling us how you would handle an imaginary situation that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Carnivore wrote:

… Now. any other jon/jane doe that comes along and tells me that I should go hide my firearm and get it out of his/her presence out in the general public, can kiss off until they make the effort and call an officer and have that officer make the judgement call,…

Substitute that with the burning of the flag again. Both are rights which other citizens have no right to impede. And please don’t bring up the “not on my property” argument. We all know that’s not what’s being discussed here. Bringing up such arguments only comes across as a duplicitous attempt to (further) obfuscate the topic.

Furthermore, while it is the officer's judgment call to make, that officer is also accountable to certain laws, and can't just make up his own rules to fit his personal agenda.


Carnivore wrote:

…now if that officer suggest that I disarm, I'll either do so or remove myself from the scenario, which ever is most convenient for me. …

You have just as much right to disarm, as the officer does to “ask” you to disarm. However, that does not mean that others are under any obligation to do so. Just because you choose to so easily surrender your rights, doesn’t mean others should follow suit. The officer can "ask", "request", or "suggest" anything he wants, but that doesn't legally obligate a citizen to comply with that suggestion. An officer can approach me and (without cause) ask for my ID. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to give it to him (especially if I'm not in possession of any ID at the time). There's a difference between a lawful order, and a personal request.

Hey Ghost rider, I've had a pretty pleasant and prosperous 47 years thus far with the morals I was raised withand the convictions of my conscience, so you blaze your trail, and I'll blaze mine..

Maybe you should reread my above post, I don't see Jacks name anywhere in it ! Why would you respond to my previous post as though I were attacking Jack, Jack can take care of his own issues, and I'm sure we'll hear from him as soon as he feels he can legally discuss the incident.

I never suggested that you should give up any of your rights at the request of an officer of the law, I was only stating how I would respond, see you misread another part of my post, I wasn't quoting any law or any thing that I thought you or anyone else has an obligation to obey, I'm flattered that youput my opinionon such a grand stage, but unless you see me quote a law that I have no reference for, please try to refrain from changing my typed humble opinion and convictions..

 

[SIGfreed]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

Maybe you should reread my above post, I don't see Jacks name anywhere in it ! Why would you respond to my previous post as though I were attacking Jack, Jack can take care of his own issues, and I'm sure we'll hear from him as soon as he feels he can legally discuss the incident.

Maybe you should check the thread your posting on.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

...freedom of speech can be spoken or written, if someone thinks they can act out their freedom of speech by burning the American/Christian/or even a P.O.W. flag in my presence, then they'll get to see me act out my freedom of speech also !

That almost sound like a threat of physical violence.


Mac 12ga. wrote:

Sorry burning of OUR GREAT FLAG is not a right, its arson plain and simple, the Constitution says free speech not expression, if you want to stand on the corner and run your mouth about how you hate this country then that is free speech, If you burn anything then that is arson.

Much as I dislike the burning of the flag (regardless of where it's made), it is most certainly a right protected under our Constitution. Calling the (wholesale) burning of the flag "arson", is like calling OC "DC", or "DTP".

Of course, your welcome to cite the law where burning the flag in and of itself is arson.

Mac 12ga. wrote:

And if the act of buning the US Flag is free speech, then me kicking the ever loving @#$% outa you for doing it, is my free speech, and should also be protected.

You have little concept of rights (at least under our Constitution, maybe you'd prefer the constitution of some country like Iraq, or the UN's), and that lack of knowledge or understanding is a tool of tyrants. This type of attitude is what''s bringing this country down. As reprehensible as someone's act of burning the flag is (and let's be honest, we're not talking about them burning 'your' flag, or burning it in "your" yard), in this country, it is their right. It's little different than having an anti-war speach at the Lincoln Memorial. You want to stop something that is offensive and reprehensible to you, much like some people want to stop other things that are likewise to them. Things like the American flag, "in God we trust", the Bible, people who work on Sunday,... etc. By your logic, people should also have a right to assault others for those actions, symbols, or concepts.

Assaulting someone for exercising their right to free speech is not (nor should it be, unless you want to live in a totalitarian society) a right. I don't like seeing the gangbangers dealing drugs off the park corner across the street, but that doesn't give me the right to sit on top of my roof with a rifle and start picking them off (and them dealing drugs isn't even a protected right). I don't much care for tattoos or body piercings either, but that doesn't give me the right to assault someone with them, or burn down the local tattoo/ piercing palor.

Another thing to think about is that, "the attitude your displaying is one that gives gun owners the "loose cannon" image", by you wanting to take matters "into your own hands".

...freedom of speech can be spoken or written, if someone thinks they can act out their freedom of speech by burning the American/Christian/or even a P.O.W. flag in my presence, then they'll get to see me act out my freedom of speech also !
That almost sound like a threat of physical violence.


I don't make idle threats, If I waste the breath to communicate a message onto someones ears, they can be rest assured I'll follow through.. pleasant or unpleasant situations. My word is my promise !

I'm not trying to portray a BadAss, I'm 5'9" 185#, but my integrity is impecable.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Unfortunate for Mt. Jack (I do believe that is what you all have been calling him) is in this situation, but it is a great case that can hopefully solve the OC problem for all. Just because someone is scared by the act, doesn't mean someone should be held accountable.

The reasonable argument could be made of someone burning a flag for example. It scares me and possibly gives aid and comfort to our countries enemies that someone would do it, but it is protected as legal and I can't get them for disturbing the peace. . . Why is a flag protected but a firearm not?

This would be where the United States Flag come into play of this topic I merely followed up with my passion concerning holding Old Glory in very high regard, Hmm another non complying member, Shame on us !! I guess your next step would to warn me / then ban me for not complying with your Idea on how the replies ofthis thread would best play out.

Please accept my most humble apologies I'll try to do better in keeping my opinions more in compliance with what I'd hope you would approve of..

 

[khicks]

imported post

this sheriff does not get it. we have the right to assemble any where, with and with out our bibles and holstered handguns. we can not bekeeped out of any place due to the fact that other persons mite show up, that can be anystreet/park/ even his own yard

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

… Maybe you should reread my above post, I don't see Jacks name anywhere in it !

If your comments were not relevant, or related to the incident with Jack, then they were “off topic” (as that is the topic of this thread), and come off as an attempt at obfuscation of the issue at hand. I’ve no need to reread you post.

Carnivore wrote:

Why would you respond to my previous post as though I were attacking Jack,

I didn’t “respond to your previous post as though you were attacking Jack”, as I clearly stated,

“Thanks for telling us how you would handle an imaginary situation that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.”

Carnivore wrote:

I never suggested that you should give up any of your rights at the request of an officer of the law,

Nor did I imply you were making such a suggestion, as I didn‘t see your post as such. Nevertheless, this thread is about the incident with Jack. Your either drifting off topic, implying others should follow the example you mentioned, or obfuscating the issue. Or, how does your comment relate to what happened to Jack? How you would handle an entirely different, imaginary scenario has nothing to do with what happened to Jack, and is either off topic, or not. If it's OT, then it's an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue. If it's not off topic, then it's related to what happened with Jack.

Carnivore wrote:

I was only stating how I would respond, see you misread another part of my post, …

No, I did not “misread” your post.

My quote was:

ghostrider wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

…now if that officer suggest that I disarm, I'll either do so or remove myself from the scenario, which ever is most convenient for me. …

You have just as much right to disarm, as the officer does to “ask” you to disarm. However, that does not mean that others are under any obligation to do so. Just because you choose to so easily surrender your rights, doesn’t mean others should follow suit. The officer can "ask", "request", or "suggest" anything he wants, but that doesn't legally obligate a citizen to comply with that suggestion. An officer can approach me and (without cause) ask for my ID. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to give it to him (especially if I'm not in possession of any ID at the time). There's a difference between a lawful order, and a personal request.

This thread is about what happened with Jack, I’m just posting in that context. If what you posted has nothing to do with what happened to Jack, then it’s OT, and obfuscation. If it is topic related, then your posting it in relation to the incident that Jack experienced.

My statement that others need not follow your example, is no less/more implication that your's of what you would do.

Carnivore wrote:

I wasn't quoting any law or any thing that I thought you or anyone else has an obligation to obey, …

I never suggested you were.

Carnivore wrote:

…I'm flattered that you put my opinion on such a grand stage, …

More obfuscation.

Carnivore wrote:

…but unless you see me quote a law that I have no reference for, please try to refrain from changing my typed humble opinion and convictions..

I’ve not changed any of your “typed humble opinion and convictions..” They are direct quotes.

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I don't make idle threats,…

Here we go again.

I never said you made any threat, let alone an “idle” one. What I said was that it "almost" sounds like one. That means that it could be taken either way, and that only you truly know the implied meaning.

Carnivore wrote:

If I waste the breath to communicate a message onto someones ears, they can be rest assured I'll follow through.. pleasant or unpleasant situations. My word is my promise !

I'm not trying to portray a BadAss, I'm 5'9" 185#, but my integrity is impecable.

What exactly does, "I'll follow through.." mean?

FYI,

A vieled, or implied threat, is a passive/agressive threat. Such behavior is not a characteristic of integrity. People with integrity do what they say, and say what they do. Implications and inuendos are often (and righteously) seen as sneaky, and underhanded. Not, integrity.

Also, if your the type of person who would be moved to physical violence at the sight of someone burning the flag, then you might consider the remifications of that paticular emotional issue. That is assault, and it is (in some jurisdictions) a felony. If your of the type to consider such actions in such a cavelier manner, then you might also consider that it only gives creedence to the anti's argument of gun owners being "loose cannons".

 

[ne1]

imported post

If the flag is a symbol of what the meateater considers the land of the free, then I'd be ashamed to fly it and might as well burn it. He idolizes a piece of cloth but has no concept of true liberty (except perhaps what liberties he can take by force). His attitude is very juvenile for a 47 year old- it probably won't be long before some young punk puts him in his place.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Carnivore wrote:

I don't make idle threats,…

Here we go again.

I never said you made any threat, let alone an “idle” one. What I said was that it "almost" sounds like one. That means that it could be taken either way, and that only you truly know the implied meaning.

Carnivore wrote:

If I waste the breath to communicate a message onto someones ears, they can be rest assured I'll follow through.. pleasant or unpleasant situations. My word is my promise !

I'm not trying to portray a BadAss, I'm 5'9" 185#, but my integrity is impecable.

What exactly does, "I'll follow through.." mean?

FYI,

A vieled, or implied threat, is a passive/agressive threat. Such behavior is not a characteristic of integrity. People with integrity do what they say, and say what they do. Implications and inuendos are often (and righteously) seen as sneaky, and underhanded. Not, integrity.

Also, if your the type of person who would be moved to physical violence at the sight of someone burning the flag, then you might consider the remifications of that paticular emotional issue. That is assault, and it is (in some jurisdictions) a felony. If your of the type to consider such actions in such a cavelier manner, then you might also consider that it only gives creedence to the anti's argument of gun owners being "loose cannons".

I'll follow through means exactly that, If you and I were ever to become friendly aquaintances, and your vehicle broke down 500 miles away and I was the only one you could turn to to get you home, and you asked me to come to pick you up at such and such a place, you can be rest assured that by the time I hung up the phone, I'd be getting the necessities together to drive 500 milesbring my friend home 24/7/365, Thats a guarantee when I tell you my word is my promise.



On the other hand, if I looked out my front door and someone was lowering the flag on my flag pole, and proceeded to light it on fire, you can be rest assuredsomeone would take the best Ass whoopin I could dish out, Thats aguarantee when I tell youMy word is my promise..

Hypothetical or not/felony or not, I have my own space, and an agressive act toward me within that space would cause an agressive response.

Now your right in the fact that I would be breaking the law for attacking someone putting on a public display of burning a flag somewhere in the general public, But I know well that if that was to take place within a 50 mile radius of my address, I would have a real hard time getting my licks infirston the flag burner ahead of the rest of the mob of soon to be felons..

OK thats enough bantering for me I'll shut up andsubmit this thread back to the original topic !!:banghead:

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

I'll follow through means exactly that, If you and I were ever to become friendly aquaintances, and your vehicle broke down 500 miles away and I was the only one you could turn to to get you home, and you asked me to come to pick you up at such and such a place, you can be rest assured that by the time I hung up the phone, I'd be getting the necessities together to drive 500 miles bring my friend home 24/7/365, Thats a guarantee when I tell you my word is my promise.

Again, that has nothing to do with the question, and is just obfuscation.


Carnivore wrote:

On the other hand, if I looked out my front door and someone was lowering the flag on my flag pole, and proceeded to light it on fire , you can be rest assured someone would take the best Ass whoopin I could dish out, Thats a guarantee when I tell you My word is my promise..

Hypothetical or not/felony or not, I have my own space, and an agressive act toward me within that space would cause an agressive response.

Again, we're not talking about someone burning your property, on your property. Your obfuscating the topic.

Now your right in the fact that I would be breaking the law for attacking someone putting on a public display of burning a flag somewhere in the general public, But I know well that if that was to take place within a 50 mile radius of my address, I would have a real hard time getting my licks in first on the flag burner ahead of the rest of the mob of soon to be felons..

At least you've stopped tap dancing around it, and are finally admitting it.