g20 trouble

[FTM]

They don't want much do they?

A banner at Trafalgar Square reads:

Troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan
End the seige of Gaza-Free Palestine
Jobs not bombs
Stop arming Israel
Abolish all nukes

presumably if we stopped making bombs we would be putting people out of a job? how does that one work?!

 

[Vonhelmet]

presumably if we stopped making bombs we would be putting people out of a job? how does that one work?!

Not sure we make many bombs here - think we buy them in.

 

[Viper²]

One of my mates makes bullets, it would put him out of a job if the protestors had their way.

 

[Sankari]

They don't want much do they?

A banner at Trafalgar Square reads:

Troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan
End the seige of Gaza-Free Palestine
Jobs not bombs
Stop arming Israel
Abolish all nukes

Can't see how any of this is relevant to an economic summit.

BTW, where is "Palestine"?

Last time I checked, Gaza was a part of Egypt which the Israelis stole during one of their wars. So the banner should actually read: "End the seige of Gaza - Free Egypt".

I'm not sure why the Palestinians think they're entitled to take part of Egypt for themselves, but oh well.

 

[leaskovski]

Just lol'd at Sky News. They actually drew a line on the screen 'where the Police are' and 'where the protestors are'.

Quality! Andy Grey will be there soon explaining how 1 protester is offside!

 

[[TW]Fox]

Funny how you call Brown, Stalin, who was a communist. Isn't the whole anti capitalist protest basically swaying towards communism and marxism? :]

Do you honestly expect the anti-everything brigade to actually KNOW what they are talking about when they throw around silly little insults like that?

 

[Dolph]

No it wasn't. The purpose was to ensure that America had a militia to defend the state in the event of threat from a foreign power. The wording was borrowed from pre-existing state legislation of the same era, one of which reads as follows:

The actual text reads as follows:

The reference is to the security of the state, not self defence.

The supreme court says you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

I know it's a common attempt at revisionism from those who oppose gun ownership, but this position has been consistently held as being an individual right for a very long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[ColdAsIce]

Do you honestly expect the anti-everything brigade to actually KNOW what they are talking about when they through around silly little insults like that?

LoL so true, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these protesters had no idea that they actually have communist views.

 

[Sankari]

The supreme court says you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I'm aware of this ruling, but it does nothing to disprove the original purpose of the clause (to which I was referring) and therefore does not prove me wrong.

I know it's a common attempt at revisionism from those who oppose gun ownership, but this position has been consistently held as being an individual right for a very long time.

The only attempt at revisionism is the one which argues that the 2nd Amendment is all about self defence. It was never about self defence, as contemporary commentaries have shown. The re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a reference to self defence is a very recent development and constitutes a deviation from its original purpose.

Speaking for myself, I am not opposed to gun ownership; we had several guns in our house when I was a kid, and I was taught to shoot by my father.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

TBH Where is JC Denton and the Helios AI when you need 'em

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

No it wasn't. The purpose was to ensure that America had a militia to defend the state in the event of threat from a foreign power....

...The reference is to the security of the state, not self defence.

George Washingon did also say

To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.

 

[Rich_L]

I know it's a common attempt at revisionism from those who oppose gun ownership, but this position has been consistently held as being an individual right for a very long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It was hardly a resounding victory though with a 5-4 conclusion, one vote different and it would have been the opposite outcome.

Were the four dissenting judges 'revisionists' who opposed gun ownership? If anything it is a great example of how a system based on an inflexible and rigid constitution can cause an enormous amount of problems in addressing unanticipated consequences.

 

[Vonhelmet]

LoL so true, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these protesters had no idea that they actually have communist views.

Most of them that you're criticising don't appear to. They're more anti things than they are pro anything.

 

[Sankari]

George Washingon did also say

He did, but it didn't stop him from using them. Washington wrote those words in the context of his ragged domestic draftees, who were often unfit for purpose.

Thus:

To place any dependence on Militia, is, assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows.
​

This helps to explain why the Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia".

 

[CaptainComedy]

lol one of the protestors did actually give a good argument went something like:

"We're concerned enough to feel like we need to be here make sure a message is given to people that know but dont think this economic struggle doesnt apply to them, to the people attending the G20 who are probably comfortable in their hotel rooms flicking over the channels who cant wait to get this meeting over and done with and make the same un-important decisions that wont make a difference. We want them to actually take note that this is the results from those decisions made directly or indirectly."

the reporter then asked him if he thought they are listening to what your saying:

"Nope, they dont care, why should they? they got no concern with our country, not even the ones that represent this country care. They got their power from us, they are just going to use the power the way they want - and look whats happened. I and everyone else are below them, I even assume we aren't even respected, the minority who are causing problems for the police are making us the ones that want to just voice an opinion look bad, I mean your standing here with a camera crew, I dont even have to raise my voice to talk and its all calm. Not quite a riot is it."

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

He did, but it didn't stop him from using them. Washington wrote those words in the context of his ragged domestic draftees, who were often unfit for purpose.

Thus:

To place any dependence on Militia, is, assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestick life;​

That is some delicious punnage from Mr Washington. ​

 

[The Dread Pirate]

lol one of the protestors did actually give a good argument went something like:

"We're concerned enough to feel like we need to be here make sure a message is given to people that know but dont think this economic struggle doesnt apply to them, to the people attending the G20 who are probably comfortable in their hotel rooms flicking over the channels who cant wait to get this meeting over and done with and make the same un-important decisions that wont make a difference. We want them to actually take note that this is the results from those decisions made directly or indirectly."

the reporter then asked him if he thought they are listening to what your saying:

"Nope, they dont care, why should they? they got no concern with our country, not even the ones that represent this country care. They got their power from us, they are just going to use the power the way they want - and look whats happened. I and everyone else are below them, I even assume we aren't even respected, the minority who are causing problems for the police are making us the ones that want to just voice an opinion look bad, I mean your standing here with a camera crew, I dont even have to raise my voice to talk and its all calm. Not quite a riot is it."

Agreed

 

[snail1]

LoL so true, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these protesters had no idea that they actually have communist views.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if more than half of these protesters had no views and had come along to smash London up a bit and pick a fight with the rozzers.

I believe that there are some people there to have a peaceful protest and have a point of view about the problems with capitalism (of which there are many). However, given the publicity this event as had I am sure there are people there for a rumble.

 

[Azza]

I bet they don't actually talk about anything in this meeting now, they just stick on BBC News and watch hippies getting the heads wacking in by the boys in blue.

 

[Geffen]

Maybe he forgot his Daily Mail, so he had nothing to quote from.

I don't think there's many Daily Mail readers protesting. My guess would be that the average Daily Mail reader would want all the protesters sent to a work camp for re-education.