Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

We're opened up to a lot of things. Like a protester using his car to run over innocent people.

Charlottesville?

The intentionally violated the law on that bus. it meant the police were gonna be called, therefore someone’s commute going to be impeded.

I think there are certain times when protesters create those situations, and then I say that’s a bad beat for them. But if they’re not creating a dangerous situation, I’m less sympathetic to what feels like violent urges from drivers.

It also opens up the path to armed protesters defending themselves against pedal-happy drivers with different viewpoints, and that feels like a tricky road to go now

They are creating a dangerous situation. They don't know what my circumstances are, I might be taking my kid to the hospital with a serious injury. That fact of the matter is that THEY are creating a dangerous situation by standing in a road meant for others to use to drive. There are plenty of other places they can stand to protest. 

They don't need firearms to create a dangerous situation. Just the shear number of protestors willing to do violence is enough to put drivers imperil. However, if they begin arming themselves, that leads to over violations that quickly changes their actions from protesting to acts of terroism. 

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how you can rationalize allowing people to trample on other peoples rights just so they can exercise their rights. 

I don’t think Waukesha was a protester? He was just a mentally ill person who wanted to hit people with his car.

No.

Waukesha Christmas parade attack - Wikipedia

No.

Waukesha Christmas parade attack - Wikipedia

This seems like good evidence that hitting folks with cars is at its base not good. 

I’m more coming from the standpoint of, there should be a very, very high bar for low-consequence intentionally hitting people with cars.

As for trampling rights, this strikes me as a somewhat invented right. I don’t have a right to absolute freedom of movement in a car (hello stoplights). Those rights are usually somewhat limited. If a homeless person is having an episode in the crosswalk, I can’t run him over. If someone is standing in front of my car to be a dick, I likewise can’t run him over unless the circumstances get pretty dire.

Im basically fine with arresting people on freeways. But I'm much more dicy on maiming them because the inconvenience you.

What is your threshold for being inconvenienced?  

How long would a mob have to impede your progress before you couldn't bear it any longer?

This seems like good evidence that hitting folks with cars is at its base not good.

In the Waukesha case, the guy's intention was to kill as many people as possible.

Much different than a major protest in Atlanta. (Which we avoided by delaying our trip.)

Or in my case, "Friedman against it?  I hate it." 

My eyes did glaze over in college econ classes, although I made good grades in them.  Now, I think, I'd probably enjoy learning economics much more. 

Incidentally, I really do think Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" should be required reading for everyone.  It's long, but do it anyway.  It's plain, useful, and somehow he managed to make it not-boring. 

Sowell is just a brilliant man.