Um, don't know what you've been smoking but: a. there is no "we", except individuals with the freedom to chose their own actions. b. cops have guns. c. some cops have armor and semi (or full?) automatics along with the "non-lethal" weaponry. d. non-cops don't and aren't allowed to carry the same weaponry. (Unless your version of "we" includes some arsenal and has been watching lots of A-Team reruns, I doubt that there's not much the cops can't do and mostly get away with it.) Yeah, "Not totally." Just like Red China isn't a total totalitarian state, and it allowed the students at Tienamen Sq to demonstrate. We're not too far away from that, except these cops don't (yet?) have tanks and as far as has been reported in the media, haven't murdered anyone in the protests, and that the arrested have been let out a few days later rather than tortured. It's certainly inching towards totalitarianism and away from "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress" (not, there's nothing in that text about protest pens, open your bag searches, show me your ID, or protest permits.) ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
Not totally. That cop on a scooter rightfully got the crap kicked out of him for mowing down demonstrators.
They can gain local, temporary control but if we take to the streets en masse then there's not much they can do, and they know it.