The Punning Pundit

And this surprises you, why?

First, the SCOTUS has pretty well said that if it's not peaceful, planned, and approved, it's not protected.

Second, when protesting at a convention means you're in a cage, topped with barb-wire, surrounded by well armed men employed by the government, and can have your "right" to protest removed by those armed guards at a moments whim, I'd say that it's most definitely NOT a right anymore, which pretty much makes it a priveledge.

So I'll ask again, you're surprised why?

No, I am not surprised. But lack of shock does not equal lack of furry...

My biggest fear is that Democrats would have done the same thing in office. There’s no way of knowing, but if a Gore victory wouldn’t have spared us these outrages, then our nation truly is heading towards fascism/empire...

Fury is all well and good, but accomplishes nothing.

The SCOTUS has nothing to do with this administration, or, at least in the scope of this event, is non-partison. Whether it was Gore, Bush, or Al Bundy, the SCOTUS has effectively already ruled on these "precautions."

What scared me, is that the "protest party" started things rolling. Where was the outrage, the cries for free-speech, and to defend the right to assemble? They should have been coming from the people IN the convention building, the one's on stage. Instead, they cried support for a war they've waffled on back and forth, one thier party claims is illegitimate, and a human rights disaster.

Where was the ACLU?

Note, those are the same people working on degrading the 2nd amendment. You know, the clause put in as the "ultimate" safe-guard against the government? I'm not saying gun laws shouldn't happen mind you, I'm just asking people to look at motives. The real motives. Allowing rights to be squashed, removing the people's voice, and removing thier last recourse... Yeah, those are golden motives, crystal clear and pure.

Rand.