Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

How to Register on LPF | LPF Donations

Politics Thread ( Don't click if you don't want to see political discussions. )

Aorus Forever said:
Burning a flag in public is protected free speech...
Click to expand...
It is also potentially illegal to burn anything on our public streets and/or sidewalks without a permit, provided one would even be available for such an activity.
An example is I have the right to freedom of speech, I can speak the word fire, but if I speak/shout the word fire in a way that breaks another law, then the act is illegal.
 





RedCowboy said:
It is also potentially illegal to burn anything on our public streets and/or sidewalks without a permit, provided one would even be available for such an activity.
An example is I have the right to freedom of speech, I can speak the word fire, but if I speak/shout the word fire in a way that breaks another law, then the act is illegal.
Click to expand...
Despite the First Amendment protection, these protections do not give you the right to break other laws. If you burn a flag on a public street, you could face charges for issues like:
  • Arson: Intentionally setting a fire in a public place could be considered arson.
  • Inciting a riot: Authorities may argue that the act is intended to provoke imminent lawless action, which is not a protected form of speech.
  • Destruction of property: If you burn a flag that doesn't belong to you, you could be charged with destruction of property or vandalism.
  • Violating fire codes or safety ordinances: Many cities and jurisdictions have laws prohibiting open fires in public spaces to ensure safety.

The bottom line
It is legal to burn a flag as a form of protest in the United States, but doing so on a public street is very likely to put you in conflict with other laws and regulations concerning public safety and property. While you cannot be prosecuted solely for desecrating the flag, you can be arrested and charged for breaking content-neutral laws related to fire or public disturbances.
 
RedCowboy said:
Again, your opinion of the shred of mainstream info you have, is not comparable to the concerns of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Click to expand...
My opinions are my own. This administration is full of lies. That is the best reason I can think of to question it.
 
Aorus Forever said:
Despite the First Amendment protection, these protections do not give you the right to break other laws. If you burn a flag on a public street, you could face charges for issues like:
  • Arson: Intentionally setting a fire in a public place could be considered arson.
  • Inciting a riot: Authorities may argue that the act is intended to provoke imminent lawless action, which is not a protected form of speech.
  • Destruction of property: If you burn a flag that doesn't belong to you, you could be charged with destruction of property or vandalism.
  • Violating fire codes or safety ordinances: Many cities and jurisdictions have laws prohibiting open fires in public spaces to ensure safety.

The bottom line
It is legal to burn a flag as a form of protest in the United States, but doing so on a public street is very likely to put you in conflict with other laws and regulations concerning public safety and property. While you cannot be prosecuted solely for desecrating the flag, you can be arrested and charged for breaking content-neutral laws related to fire or public disturbances.
Click to expand...
That truly depends on the state. I certainly wouldn't want to burn a flag in the South. But, I'm fairly certainly if I wanted to do it here in Washington it would be fine. I have no desire to burn the American flag, though.
 
So many have called for RFK Jr to be fired it's difficult to keep up. More than a thousand former and current CDC employees, nine former leaders of HHS and CDC have, and now Trump's former HHS Sec has.
 
I've read that it could have other uses, only in-depth studies aren't funded because it would lack profitability.
 
RedCowboy said:
I've read that it could have other uses, only in-depth studies aren't funded because it would lack profitability.
Click to expand...
I really couldn't say. If it isn't getting funded, who do you believe is responsible? Government usually takes up the slack.
 
It's been that way for many years, maybe alternate use cases aren't really that strong.

I don't know how bad Kennedy really is, if he's truly off the deep end or not, there's a lot of slanted misinformation, I know he want's to see people live healthier lives.

Maybe if we weren't lied too so much, we might be better able to trust government, but today that's impossible.
 
RedCowboy said:
It's been that way for many years, maybe alternate use cases aren't really that strong.

I don't know how bad Kennedy really is, if he's truly off the deep end or not, there's a lot of slanted misinformation, I know he want's to see people live healthier lives.

Maybe if we weren't lied too so much, we might be better able to trust government, but today that's impossible.
Click to expand...
Kennedy claims that, but he has been an anti-vaccine advocate for a very long time. I agree that we are lied to, but likely for different reasons than you.
 
I've always been pro vaccine, but I think the long term safety of mRNA vaccines is still unknown.

Potential health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy: A hypothesis - PMC

Therapeutic applications of synthetic mRNA were proposed more than 30 years ago, and are currently the basis of one of the vaccine platforms used at a massive scale as part of the public health strategy to get COVID-19 under control. To date, there ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

brownstone.org

Are the Covid mRNA Vaccines Safe? ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning.
brownstone.org brownstone.org
 
Last edited:
RedCowboy said:
I've always been pro vaccine, but I think the long term safety of mRNA vaccines is still unknown.

Potential health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy: A hypothesis - PMC

Therapeutic applications of synthetic mRNA were proposed more than 30 years ago, and are currently the basis of one of the vaccine platforms used at a massive scale as part of the public health strategy to get COVID-19 under control. To date, there ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Actually, mRNA vaccines are safer than other conventional vaccines. I've had seven COVID-19 vaccines with no problem. Never got COVID-19 either. Some people see mRNA and think that's awful. Fact of the matter is, we wouldn't even be here without it.
 
Last edited:
RedCowboy said:
I've always been pro vaccine, but I think the long term safety of mRNA vaccines is still unknown.

Potential health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy: A hypothesis - PMC

Therapeutic applications of synthetic mRNA were proposed more than 30 years ago, and are currently the basis of one of the vaccine platforms used at a massive scale as part of the public health strategy to get COVID-19 under control. To date, there ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

brownstone.org

Are the Covid mRNA Vaccines Safe? ⋆ Brownstone Institute

Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning.
brownstone.org brownstone.org
Click to expand...
mRNA has been around for quite a while, Messenger RNA, or mRNA, was discovered in the early 1960s; research into how mRNA could be delivered into cells was developed in the 1970s. The early years of mRNA research were marked by a lot of enthusiasm for the technology, but some difficult technical challenges that took a great deal of innovation to overcome.

The biggest challenge was that mRNA would be taken up by the body and quickly degraded before it could “deliver” its message—the RNA transcript—and be read into proteins in the cells.

The solution to this problem came from advances in nanotechnology: the development of fatty droplets (lipid nanoparticles) that wrapped the mRNA like a bubble, which allowed entry into the cells. Once inside the cell, the mRNA message could be translated into proteins, like the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, and the immune system would then be primed to recognize the foreign protein.

The first mRNA vaccines using these fatty envelopes were developed against the deadly Ebola virus, but since that virus is only found in a limited number of African countries, it had no commercial development in the U.S.

Remember, the COVID-19 pandemic spurred manufacturers to develop dozens of potential vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and brought tremendous increases in funding. Some of those vaccines used traditional methods involving adenovirus as the spike protein delivery system—such as the Johnson & Johnson vector vaccine.

Thanks to decades of research and innovation, mRNA vaccine technology was ready. With COVID, this technology got its moment and has proven to be extremely safe and effective. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is the first mRNA product to achieve full FDA approval in the U.S.

Already, vaccine manufacturers are developing mRNA vaccines to protect against other respiratory viruses such as the flu. Moderna is exploring applications of the technology to protect against HIV. It’s a new era for vaccine technology and production, and a testament to scientific progress and decades of research.

People like RFK Jr threaten to take us back to the Stone Age with his pseudoscience bull shit...
 
Democrats should have run somebody decent, somebody moderate, not Harris.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top