3 ms·
They would be infinitely better off. I don't understand this sentiment of "even with guns it's not gonna work so let's just roll over and take it". If you per
by kaolti 7y ago
They would be infinitely better off.
I don't understand this sentiment of "even with guns it's not gonna work so let's just roll over and take it".
If you personally don't think you'll be better off that's fine, but surely you get that if someone WANTS to fight tooth and nail in self-defense he should be given a chance to do so.
- coryfklein 7y agoReally?! Like somehow having Hong Kong in rubble and surrounded by the largest army in the world is a better situation? If Hong Kong had to rely on force of arms to win its independence, then it's defeat is nearly a foregone conclusion. They just do not have the capacity to stand up to the LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. Maybe, MAYBE an armed conflict in Hong Kong would sway the U.S. to intervene, but the U.S. is so averse to armed conflict right now and, frankly, today they have a very antagonistic view to foreigners. Not likely they'd be willing to take a bullet for the people of Hong Kong. If the protestors in Hong Kong take up arms, it will only provide an excuse for Beijing to escalate.
- remarkEon 7y agoI love this. Hong Kongers don’t need the 2nd Amendment because “maybe” the United States will start WWIII over their protests, which they started after realizing that integration with China will actually happen.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>If Hong Kong had to rely on force of arms to win its independence, then it's defeat is nearly a foregone conclusion. They just do not have the capacity to stand up to the LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. If they'd rather die free than old that's their choice to make and they deserve to be able to make it.