Summations Only

How does a population stop this from this happening without individual possession of guns?Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.

There is no way for the people of China to overthrow their government now because they are unarmed. I realize that the police and the military are more armed than the populace could ever be, but at least it is possible to start guerilla war with the state if the populace is armed. Being armed would make it possible to kill the shipment inspectors at the borders and the maritime shipping docks and get military style weapons in from other sympathetic countries. Without an armed populace, this is not possible.

It came to power by guerilla warfare and that was made possible because the citizenry was allowed to have weapons. It is not always possible to become armed should the need arise. That is next to impossible in a strongly armed police state like the former soviet union. Any suspicion of revolt would have millions executed on the spot. A great portion of the people of China DID want to overthrow their government early on when they found out how repressive it was. As time wore on and as the state systematically brainwashed its people , sometimes by force in reeducation camps, the desire to overthrow the state became less and less but many people there would love to have something other than totalitarian communism as a form of government.

A willing weapons salesman will not get very far in a very strong and repressive police state. Millions will get executed in the process. As for the people of China not wanting to overthrow their
government, read my comments to Ringo. Like I said before, persuading and coercing inspectors or circumventing legitimate import channels in a state like the former Soviet Union would be snuffed out before it got started. A strong police state is good at preventing rebellion. For example, it would be impossible to smuggle weapons into China or conduct secret air drops. The government would find out quickly and snuff it out even quicker.

I am aware of that history. The non violent protest worked because the british colonial government was not a repressive police state like the former soviet union. Regardless of popular opinion on the subject, not all colonialists were vile,evil people. The british colonial rulers could be affected by such tactics as gandhi applied. Edi Amin or Stalin would have annihilated Chandi and anyone who spoke even positively about him. How non violent is filling truck tires with gasoline and putting them on government sympathizers and lighting them on fire- a procedure known as necklacing? Its amazing what a huge media spotlight that puts your every move under a microscope and broadcasts it to every media outlet in the world can do isn't it? I cant think of a single president or administration during that time that even remotely resembled a police state like the former soviet union or China. Again, the United States is not a brutal police force. Its funny watching a bunch of smelly, college graduates with worthless degrees who have never worked a day in their lives try to take away money from productive individuals, isn't it? They may get their way with the obama administration but it will only serve to limit the financial freedom people currently have within the banking system and make it more expensive to do so. Governments already use guns on the populace without justification, so your point is moot. I agree, but it is foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes it is, but it is not possible to live in freedom in a totalitarian police state without guns.Unarmed non-violent protest creates change by evolution of government rather than by revolution.[/qs]

You cannot overthrow a brutal police state without guns. I agree that you can overthrow a democracy with guns and institute a police state. You can also prevent a democracy from turning into a police state with guns. A democracy that is morphing into a police state won't get very far at removing undesirables from their property and home when they get blown away by 45 calibers when they attempt to do so.

China has begun to let people start to form businesses and keep part of their money instead of it all going to the state. It has not always been such and you know this very well I'm sure. Still, the state considers such practices a privilege, and assumes the right to remove such privileges at will depending on circumstance. Such practices are not a constitutional right.

You can't be serious. That is a ridiculous notion in the extreme. Do you live in a alternative universe or something? Don't you mean selectively cherry picked video feeds that are staged by left wing media outlets? It's even funnier that you buy into ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,PBS, Daily Kos, Rachel MadKow, Democrat underground, Huffington Post's spin on it rather than getting a balanced, well represented picture that you could find on conservative media outlets.Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.

The minority here gets piled on. He isn't the only one to respond to when you are a conservative that draws liberals like maggots to rotting flesh. You have to pick and choose what you respond to or you will spend all of your time here and end up in an insane asylum.

Yes, the United States has a population that is violent prone. Repressed peoples in socialist states have many of these primal drives removed. If you know you have very little chance to move up in class because you do not have political connections and know the right people, your drive to excel is sapped and you resort to drink and be satisfied with your excessive vacation time allotted you and your free medical care and perhaps shoot up some heroine...anything to remove to dull existence of socialistic life. There is nothing in that lifestyle to cause any violent tendencies in the population.Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.