Ok, I'll give you that one. However, I would put that in the "nanny state" category with seatbelt laws. When one goes somewhere where protesters are likely to be, there is always an inherent risk. If activities with inherent risks are outlawed, few if any human behaviors will remain unregulated. And important rights that made America great such as free speech, free assembly and the right to keep and bear arms will be but a memory.
And I thought this was about the gay event.
There was a very heated thread recently about Bush's security threatening protesters with arrest. I thought it relevent here because I wanted to see if the people who opposed me on the other thread would be consistent, or be hypocrites. It appears we have both.
That's two, but who's counting?
When one goes somewhere where protesters are likely to be, there is always an inherent risk.
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. If I happen to be walking along the public square and I happen to get caught up in an angry mob, it is my fault for being where "protestors are likely to be"?
Sheesh.
There was a very heated thread recently about Bush's security threatening protesters with arrest.
I know.