[@Vilageidiotx]

Security checkpoints needn't be and should not be intrusive. I am not advocating airline levels of invasiveness, but rather points located in areas of high traffic, be it vehicles or people, and strategic benefit; highways, toll roads, choke points and the like. Something as simple as the checking of a driver's license and registration. It needn't be as elaborate as a national database that tracks scanned identification, although it should to better establish continuity.

The purpose of such efforts is the first of the five fundamental "Ds". That being deterrennce and going hand in hand with detection. They needn't check every car or person, being random enough an observer cannot reliably predict if they will be stopped and not irritating enough to hinder the regular public. If the illusion is at least there, it helps to curb potential activity, both criminal and terror.

The people of the United States, the average American and not the exception, are granted more freedom than they know what to do with or understand. This is no secret and in a way, is beautiful in its own right. The issue with it is, is that most of the populace does not have an understanding of a treat that can arise at effective random, or how to actually curb it. Tactics such as these are not subversion, intrusion or exploitation of basic rights; this is little different than a checkpoint developed to dissuade, detect or stop intoxicated drivers or those under another influence.

Surrender to terror would be to abide by their rules, beliefs and laws rather than our own. To display a willingness to combat that and be wary of them shows and emphasizes resistance. The philosophy of, "Proactive prevention will harm, hamper, discredit and deny you the opportunity to hurt us." Being reactive, as people often criticize law enforcement for, is not a way to defeat fundamentalists. And the worst news people do not like to hear, is that this mindset, this air of alertness, is mandatory and essential; life will never return to the pre-9/11 era.

Because of my bias to the right, I believe it is essential that it undergoes and evolution to combat, counter and dissaude leftist policies, of which have become - in my lifetime - more extreme. Once upon a time I considered the Democratic party, but I find myself with no moderates to even back or invest in.

That quote about the left and right comparisons might have been more valid in the past, but I believe the modern left does buy into, or is at least willing to, support policies that are more radical in comparison to the right. For example, I believe most of the left consctibes to the notion that bathrooms should be used by those who identify as a particular gender, if any at all. The right by contrast I have heard just about every argument in between. My opinion? There should be male, female and neutral - open to all - bathrooms, as we saw once with "family restrooms" and I do not believe someone who has not fully transitioned should be permitted in the opposite sex's bathroom.

And no, let me state this clearly, because I find this ground dangerous and without room for error; I believe the far left has the inadvertent ability to accidentally, or even knowingly, allow a radical into their group who consctibes to their philosophy. This hypothetical person has the willingness, capacity and intent to utilize a firearm and or an explosive device for political movtive. In doing so, they kill American citizens.

It is my worst fear that this attack will provoke those present to participate in a small scale engagement at that time. It may or may not be coordinated on a low-level. Furthermore, it will provide a basis for the right to demonize the left as a whole and will compromise the credibility of anyone who has those leanings.

No, I do not believe in "right wing death squads" and I find that argument and notion silly, but I worry that current political violence will escalate and get American citizens hurt or killed because of negligence.

As for protesting, my policy in such a circumstance is to not attend. If you feel so strongly, acquire a permit if need be and legally engage in non-violent, non-intrusive demonstrations that do not impact those who want to attend or participate.

[@Dynamo Frokane]

I could not agree more that this has been a mostly polite discussion and civil. The entire time I have been involved it certainly has been, which is exactly as I hoped. I am fond of the idea that even dissenting opinions and opposed ideals can converse peacefully and make their points.