Public armed with personal arms would change nothing when tanks roll in.

Power of public is in numbers. Revolutions happen when everybody including soldiers become the protesters.

Unfortunately in this media age thats going to be harder and harder.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Partly because the idea of civilians using guns bought at the supermarket to oppose the Chinese army is hilarious; partly because the idea that you need guns to get freedom, is general, even more laughable. Sorry.

I feel sorry for you. You don't truly understand how you have the freedom for instance..To speak your mind here on HN.

Very few governments will just give away freedom and power. It needs to be take back by force.

If the HK citizens had access to weapons this entire time, the Chinese government would think twice before invading. Unfortunately, it's too late for that.

This is why the second amendment is so important in the US.

Is the creation of the United States laughable? What was used in order to gain that freedom from Britain? Firearms maybe?

The last time some of the US states tried to secede from the rest of the union and gain their "freedom" (they were of course heavily armed) they were attacked and crushed in a war that lasted 4 years and caused almost a million deaths. So in that case the weapons didn't work. Or did they?

Sometimes armed rebellion has good outcomes, sometimes (probably more often) it has horribly tragic ones. Prolonged political pressure and alliances, non-violent protest, can give equally good results without the risk of creating bloodsheds like the US secession war or the current Syrian civil war (that as horrendous as it is, has yet to claim as many victims as the US secession war).

This is a very privileged and perhaps even ignorant view to take. Not everybody has the luxury of waiting for a peaceful revolution to happen.

> This is a very privileged and perhaps even ignorant view to take.

I'll spare myself the obvious retort. Not everyone has the privilege of starting an armed revolution and succeed, or simply survive. Not everyone who does is guaranteed to be in the right (for example the US states that tried to secede). And the outcome can be complete destruction for yourself, for your city and your region, and hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions displaced and homeless- many of whom couldn't care less about your "revolution".

Do I condemn armed resistance? No. Of course not, sometimes it is inevitable. But the idea that you should distribute firearms to people just in case somebody one day decides he's fed up and wants to start shooting other people for freedom, or for white supremacy, or- why not- for a religious caliphate- that is ridiculous.

We're there tanks back then?

>We're there tanks back then?

No, we're here taking potshots at each other on the Internet.

Not sure you’re using the right definition of tyranny

How do you defend yourself against the Chinese army with just handguns and rifles? You can post the answer here, or better yet, sell it to Taiwan confidentially for billions of dollars.

Ask the Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese had room to maneuver and hide and had the support of the locals. In addition you overestimate how little the Chinese government gives a shit about the average citizen. In such an engagement there will be no "hearts and minds" war. If they decide to go the military route they will flood HK and massacre anybody who gives off the slightest whiff of sedition.

Personally I think they'll just continue arresting and making people disappear to the mainland so there is nothing damaging on the news.

I'm glad that you asked. We had a long history with our big "brother" China. But I don't think this is relevant because at the end of the day, Hong Kong and Taiwan are still Chinese.

For a more recent example ISIS was crushed.

The Vietnamese had massive foreign support. China is unlikely to give up so easily, and no country is going to want to keep arming such a resistance.

Just to be clear, in the most recent conflict between Vietnam and China, we had very limit foreign support, even the support from the Soviet.

In all fairness the Vietnamese had among the most battle-trained armies of the time, with massive manpower, enough of weaponry and extreme determination. Plus a difficult terrain. Equipment-wise they had infantry weapons, artillery, air force, aerial defense...

HK has maybe a difficult terrain?