One of the most sacred symbols of America is our United States flag.

It represents our history, our freedoms, and the sacrifices made by countless men and women to protect this nation. Yet we are told that people are allowed to burn the American flag in protest — a symbol of disrespect not only toward the flag, but toward the country we stand for. To add to the offense, some then choose to fly the flags of other countries in defiance.

This is wrong.
While freedom of speech is a protected right in our nation — one of the very rights the flag represents — we must also recognize that with freedom comes responsibility and respect. Disrespecting our flag dishonors the principles that make this country great.

We should never take lightly the meaning of the American flag. It deserves honor, not contempt.

If people want to support countries whose governments would punish — even execute — them for doing what they freely do to the American flag, we have to ask: Why do we tolerate this kind of disrespect here?

Burning, stepping on, or spitting on the United States flag isn’t just an act of protest — it’s an attack on the very freedoms and sacrifices that make those protests possible. In many of the countries whose flags are proudly waved in these protests, such actions would lead to prison or worse.

There must be a line.
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but when that freedom is used to defame the very nation that protects it, we should question whether we’ve lost sight of the balance between liberty and loyalty.

The American flag stands for all of us — for justice, for sacrifice, for freedom. It should never be treated with contempt by those who benefit from all it represents.


Proposed Constitutional Amendment: The Flag Protection Amendment

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Section 2. Desecration shall include any intentional act of burning, defacing, defiling, trampling upon, spitting upon, or otherwise showing contempt toward the U.S. flag in a public setting.

Section 3. Congress shall have the authority to define penalties, including imprisonment, fines, or other appropriate sanctions, for violation of this amendment.

Section 4. This amendment shall not be construed to abridge the freedom of speech, but to protect a national symbol held sacred by the people of the United States.


Sample Federal Legislation: The Flag Honor and Loyalty Act

Section 1. Short Title
This Act shall be known as the Flag Honor and Loyalty Act of 2025.

Section 2. Prohibited Conduct
It shall be unlawful for any person, while in the United States or under U.S. jurisdiction, to willfully and publicly desecrate the flag of the United States.

Section 3. Definitions

  • “Desecrate” means to knowingly burn, trample, tear, spit on, or otherwise defile the U.S. flag in a way intended to express contempt or hatred.
  • “Public setting” includes protests, demonstrations, or any event where the act is meant to be seen or is recorded for distribution.

Section 4. Penalties
(a) Any person found guilty of flag desecration shall be sentenced to not less than 10 years and up to 50 years in federal prison.
(b) If the act of desecration is performed while waving, displaying, or promoting a foreign national flag, the individual may be subject to revocation of citizenship (if naturalized) and deportation to the nation whose flag was displayed, if they hold dual citizenship or legal standing in that country.

Section 5. Exceptions
This Act shall not apply to the proper and respectful retirement of worn or damaged flags by authorized organizations such as the American Legion or Boy Scouts of America.

Section 6. Enforcement
The U.S. Department of Justice shall have the authority to enforce this Act and prosecute violations in federal court.


Send this to President Trump, your House Rep, and your Congress Rep

Let’s make this happen


Feel free to reach out with any questions, feedback on articles, or anything else you’d like to discuss—I’m always happy to connect!


Copyright Notice © 2025 Cecil Wayne Thorn Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work authored by Cecil Wayne Thorn, to distribute, display, and reproduce the work, in its entirety, including verbatim copies, provided that no fee is charged for the copies or distribution. This permission is granted for non-commercial distribution only.


States Vs Federal Constitutional Carry

Wayne Thorn

I recently had written to my U.S. Congressman about the upcoming HR 38 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and HR 645 National Constitutional Carry Act, telling him how I would want him to vote on these two bills on the HR 645 he sent me a letter stating that he thought that it should be handled by the State’s not by the Federal Government.


March 26, 2025

Dear Mr. Thorn,

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act. This bill was introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on January 23, 2025. It has since been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.

The National Constitutional Carry Act ensures the protection of Americans’ Second Amendment right by prohibiting any state or local government from imposing civil or criminal penalties on an individual eligible to possess a firearm in a public setting. The bill also invalidates any standing state or local statute, regulation, or law that prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in public.

I adamantly oppose any regulations or laws that would make firearms or ammunition less accessible or more difficult to obtain for all law-abiding Americans. For this reason, I have co-sponsored several pieces of legislation relating to the protection of our Second Amendment rights. I’ve previously co-introduced the Stopping Unconstitutional Background Checks Act, which prohibits federal funds from being used to expand the licensing requirements for individuals attempting to obtain a firearm. Regulating a legal hobby the same as a federally licensed gun store is extreme government overreach and infringes on the rights of law-abiding Americans. I also cosponsored H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which amends federal law to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. A qualified individual must be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law, carry a government-issued photo ID, and carry a valid concealed carry permit.

Safe and responsible firearms ownership is part of America’s foundational document, the Constitution, and continues to contribute to individual and public safety. While I am a supporter of constitutional carry and have advocated for laws that protect and strengthen this right, constitutional carry is largely a matter of state law and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Florida Legislature. I am an opponent of the federal government infringing on state rights and taking matters out of the hands of our duly elected state legislators. Should you want to discuss the matter of constitutional carry further, I encourage you to contact your state legislators by visiting www.myfloridahouse.gov and http://www.flsenate.gov. Meanwhile, I have and will continue to vote to defend the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. The longtime head of the Florida NRA, Marion Hammer, said “The NRA has no better friend than Daniel Webster.”

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. To stay updated on what’s happening in Washington, sign up for my weekly Webster Wire. Thank you for allowing me to serve as your U.S. Representative.

Your servant,

Daniel Webster
Member of Congress


I thought that maybe he could be right, so I researched the Constitutional Carry law for each of the states and sent him my investigation on this topic. What I found was very surprising.

States Vs Federal Constitutional Carry (19 page PDF)

This 19-page document examines state Constitutional Carry laws and provides an in-depth comparison of firearm purchase and concealed carry permit requirements in three selected states. I then conducted the same analysis for states without Constitutional Carry laws.

Despite the existence of Constitutional Carry in some states, many still impose their own regulations on purchasing, carrying, and using firearms—some even stricter than federal laws.

Meanwhile, states without Constitutional Carry laws often have even more restrictive policies, making firearm ownership and carry rights significantly more burdensome.

The Second Amendment states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed1.” and the states are infringing on our Constitutional Rights.


I asked him whether this was truly what the people wanted or if he simply believed it was the better option. I also requested any poll data he had on his constituents’ opinions.

I’ll let you know if he responds!


Tell me what you would be: [email protected]


Foot Notes

  1. In the context of the Second Amendment, “Shall not be infringed” means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be violated or diminished, ensuring that this fundamental right remains protected.; ↩︎

New HR645 National Constitutional Carry

Wayne Thorn

I just saw on the Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News YouTube channel (Link to Podcast) that Rep. Thomas Massie [R-KY-4] has introduced H.R.645.

This bill is a game-changer—it aims to eliminate most federal and state firearm regulations, allowing every law-abiding citizen the freedom to carry firearms across all states.

I encourage you to read the bill yourself and reach out to your representatives to voice your support. H.R.645 has the potential to fully restore our Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, honoring the original intent of our Constitution’s Founding Fathers.

Let’s stand together to protect our freedoms!

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.


Contact Me: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.


Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Loading

Try That In A Small Town

SMALL TOWN

Need to listen to this!

This song is not about trying to start riots, this just tell the story about what has gone on in the US now.

Then stating this would not happen in the small town in the US, because they look out for each other and help each other.

FREE speech is a constitutional right for all people to be able to vocalize there concerns to each other and the government , but does not give you the right to riot, destroying property, stealing or hurting individuals.


NOTE: Comments will not appear until approved by the moderator