5 ms·

And this is why in Germany you can't protest with any guns, military swat gear, masks, or other weapons. Doing so is illegal because a large group of people wit

by Akujin 9y ago

And this is why in Germany you can't protest with any guns, military swat gear, masks, or other weapons. Doing so is illegal because a large group of people with weapons can intimidate another group into not being able to exercise their free speech.

gasof 9y ago
How did that work out at the G20 protests?
- vk23 9y ago
  Apart from some property damage and a few minor injuries it worked out pretty well. Nobody got killed and over the weekend only a single gunshot was fired (in the air). I dont want to imagine what would happen if a protest like the g20 one would clash with the police when guns are involved on both sides...
- matt4077 9y ago
  Quite ok, actually. Nobody was killed. There were no "minutemen of the patriotic revolution" in fatigues and with automatic weapons. There were fantastic, peaceful protests such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXRmurPTRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXRmurPTRI Yeah, there was property damage. So what? Also, I'm not quite sure what you're actually trying to say? Are you suggesting the protests would have been /better/ if protesters had had automatic weapons?
  - ckastner 9y ago
    You are deluding yourself when you call a protest with (significant, I might add) property damage fantastic and peaceful. Are you not aware that multiple instances of arson were committed [1]? Also: > Yeah, there was property damage. So what? What if this was your property? Would you be as callous if it had been your car that had been set on fire? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-protests-idUSKBN19S1BA http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-protests-idUSK...
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Are you not aware that multiple instances of arson were committed [1]? Are you aware that some property damage and or arson in protests is a tradition in Europe, and we don't consider it the end of the world? It's part of what it takes to have an actual democracy and an engaged population (at least part of the population). Sometimes, we even behead our kings and burn down their palaces.
      - vageli 9y ago
        Citizens burning the property of other citizens is an effective deterrent to tyranny? Your second statement mentions beheading the king and burning palaces, which would be more akin to the citizenry marching on the house of government and setting it ablaze with the politicians inside.
      - ckastner 9y ago
        > Are you aware that some property damage and or arson in protests is a tradition in Europe, and we don't consider it the end of the world? I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition. Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period. > Sometimes, we even behead our kings and burn down their palaces. That is, in my opinion, romantic nonsense. Neither of those things happened here, by any stretch of imagination. No kings were beheaded, and the only thing that was burned down were the houses and carriages of random peasants.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition. Well, there's a 40+ year history of such demonstrations, going back to before May '68 -- in France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, etc, that's been recorded historically, and many consider an important tool against a passive democracy were people merely vote every 4 years. >Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period. (1) In practice tradition is the strongest force that makes something morally right: one finds "morally right" what their era considers as morally right, which in turn is what it has been passed on and taught as morally right (aka tradition). Apart from that, there are some kind of universal principles we all more or less agree to (no killing etc), but you'd be surprised how many people would consider those things morally OK to violate when their era finds it OK for political, patriotic etc reasons. But I didn't say it's "morally right" -- but that it's a tradition, and it has been proven fruitful in the past in keeping those in power at check, at least somewhat. (2) Sure, but it's not like only peaceful protests are OK. Some of the more effective protests, like the May 68 rights that forever changed the ethics of modern Europe, were not "peaceful" in that sense.
  - autotypo 9y ago
    Semi-automatic weapons, not automatic. With respect, this is a crucial point if one desires to be taken seriously by gun owners when talking about guns, because confusing it reveals a lack of basic knowledge of the subject.
- ionised 9y ago
  Pretty well. Why?
- coldtea 9y ago
  Great. The protests was free speech. The G20 and the interests they serve is what stiffles free speech.

by Akujin 9y ago

gasof 9y ago

How did that work out at the G20 protests?

vk23 9y ago
Apart from some property damage and a few minor injuries it worked out pretty well. Nobody got killed and over the weekend only a single gunshot was fired (in the air). I dont want to imagine what would happen if a protest like the g20 one would clash with the police when guns are involved on both sides...
matt4077 9y ago
Quite ok, actually. Nobody was killed. There were no "minutemen of the patriotic revolution" in fatigues and with automatic weapons. There were fantastic, peaceful protests such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXRmurPTRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXRmurPTRI Yeah, there was property damage. So what? Also, I'm not quite sure what you're actually trying to say? Are you suggesting the protests would have been /better/ if protesters had had automatic weapons?
- ckastner 9y ago
  You are deluding yourself when you call a protest with (significant, I might add) property damage fantastic and peaceful. Are you not aware that multiple instances of arson were committed [1]? Also: > Yeah, there was property damage. So what? What if this was your property? Would you be as callous if it had been your car that had been set on fire? [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-protests-idUSKBN19S1BA http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-protests-idUSK...
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Are you not aware that multiple instances of arson were committed [1]? Are you aware that some property damage and or arson in protests is a tradition in Europe, and we don't consider it the end of the world? It's part of what it takes to have an actual democracy and an engaged population (at least part of the population). Sometimes, we even behead our kings and burn down their palaces.
    - vageli 9y ago
      Citizens burning the property of other citizens is an effective deterrent to tyranny? Your second statement mentions beheading the king and burning palaces, which would be more akin to the citizenry marching on the house of government and setting it ablaze with the politicians inside.
    - ckastner 9y ago
      > Are you aware that some property damage and or arson in protests is a tradition in Europe, and we don't consider it the end of the world? I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition. Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period. > Sometimes, we even behead our kings and burn down their palaces. That is, in my opinion, romantic nonsense. Neither of those things happened here, by any stretch of imagination. No kings were beheaded, and the only thing that was burned down were the houses and carriages of random peasants.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >I am European, and I am not aware of any such tradition. Well, there's a 40+ year history of such demonstrations, going back to before May '68 -- in France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, etc, that's been recorded historically, and many consider an important tool against a passive democracy were people merely vote every 4 years. >Regardless, (1) "tradition" doesn't make something morally right, and (2) a protest involving arson and hundreds of injured people cannot be called peaceful, period. (1) In practice tradition is the strongest force that makes something morally right: one finds "morally right" what their era considers as morally right, which in turn is what it has been passed on and taught as morally right (aka tradition). Apart from that, there are some kind of universal principles we all more or less agree to (no killing etc), but you'd be surprised how many people would consider those things morally OK to violate when their era finds it OK for political, patriotic etc reasons. But I didn't say it's "morally right" -- but that it's a tradition, and it has been proven fruitful in the past in keeping those in power at check, at least somewhat. (2) Sure, but it's not like only peaceful protests are OK. Some of the more effective protests, like the May 68 rights that forever changed the ethics of modern Europe, were not "peaceful" in that sense.
- autotypo 9y ago
  Semi-automatic weapons, not automatic. With respect, this is a crucial point if one desires to be taken seriously by gun owners when talking about guns, because confusing it reveals a lack of basic knowledge of the subject.
ionised 9y ago
Pretty well. Why?
coldtea 9y ago
Great. The protests was free speech. The G20 and the interests they serve is what stiffles free speech.