29% Think Armed Revolution Needed

[TripleDigitRide]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/poll-shows-2-percent-voters-think-armed-revolution-might-be-needed/?test=latestnews

[Poor_Dog]

I'd dare suggest that poll is likely low and getting more so on a daily basis

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Have to agree with that. It's one of the primary reasons for gun sales in this country, right now.

[Raoul]

Sad, but not surprising.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, even sadder is that we let it get this far, to the point of people even considering the prospect.

[Chucktshoes]

Yeh, even sadder is that we let it get this far, to the point of people even considering the prospect.

This course was set long before any of us on this board were born, we just have the unfortunate luck to be around to watch the end.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Asked whether an armed revolution might soon be necessary to protect liberties, 29 percent said yes. 

Another 47 percent said no, while the rest were either unsure or declined to answer. 

Of those who said yes, 44 percent were Republicans. Most of those who said yes also did not support more gun control legislation. 

 

44% republican sounds about right. Was guessing from the thread title it would maybe be thataway.

 

Self-described ibertarians seem to be about 10 or 12 percent of the population, though according to "objective tests" perhaps a third of citizens ought to qualify, and of course in voting habits it doesn't even reach ten percent and if it ever would reach ten percent in an election it would be a BFD.

 

Was guessing maybe "non aligned" libertarians or independents who despise both parties would perhaps make up 10 or 12 percent in the poll sample. Therefore, along with the libertarians/independents one might see about 44 percent democrats and 44 percent republicans (out of that 29 percent who expect armed revolution).

 

In other words, if it ever came to a shooting revolution, nearly half of the revolutionaries would be rabid left-wingers, nearly half the revolutionaries would be rabid right-wingers, with maybe one-in-ten disaffected libertarians?

 

Like when BushJr had crazy-low approval numbers. Only a tiny slice of the middle-right liked the dude. Everybody to the left of that tiny slice didn't like him, and everybody to the right of that tiny slice didn't like him. Whenever Obamas ratings go way down in the toilet it will be similar, with most lefties despising him along with most right-wingers, but for entirely different reasons. Just sayin, if Obama ever gets down to 10 percent approval then it won't be a slam-dunk that the next election will swing wildly right, because he will be despised by many lefties for not being far-enough left, and those folks will never vote for a right-winger.

 

However, referencing the poll data link may paint a different picture--  http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/final.pdf

Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents.

Only 38 percent of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation, compared with 62 percent of those who don’t think an armed revolt will be needed. “The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” said Cassino. “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

 

That original abstract has different wording, and the fox new article may have misinterpreted. The fox news article said that out of 29 percent, 44 percent of those are republican. But the wording of the original report appears to explain that 18 percent of ALL DEMOCRATS, 27 percent of ALL INDEPENDENTS, and 44 percent of ALL REPUBLICANS (in the poll sample) expect armed revolution. Which would presumably average-out to 29 percent overall.

 

That seems the most reasonable interpretation, because 18+27+44 only adds up to 89 percent, so it probably isn't a breakout of sub-percentages among the 29 percent.

 

Historically speaking, Johnson wasn't real popular with rabid leftists of the time, and Nixon even less popular. At that time a LOT of rabid leftists wanted armed revolution but very few right-wingers wanted armed revolution, because the government of the time was fairly right-wing, at least on some issues. Therefore it would make sense that fewer right wingers would expect revolution necessary, because things were already going their way.

 

So perhaps that would explain that fewer left-wingers expect revolution necessary nowadays, because "things have been going their way". The only pro-revolution lefties are the extreme left who are so far left that they believe the Obama admin a right-wing travesty? Similar to the far-left's views of Johnson back in the 1960's?

 

Anyway, going by that logic, if the right ever regains power and begins rolling back the "utopian leftist gains" of the current administration, then perhaps this poll would show inverted results? Suddenly right wingers would no longer favor armed revolution now that "things are going their way", and left wingers would suddenly decide that on second thought armed revolution is a pretty good idea?

 

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

So is that a third of registered voters who took the poll or some fancy mathmatical calculation that factors in the entire voting population? Becase 1/3 of registered voters is different from 863 registered voters who took the poll. Sorry, I was never great at math and statistics.

[Guest RedLights&Sirens]

So is that a third of registered voters who took the poll or some fancy mathmatical calculation that factors in the entire voting population? Becase "1/3 of registered voters" as it is worded is different from 863 registered voters who took the poll. Sorry, I was never great at math and statistics.

Ummm wow, I meant to edit. Sorry. Edited May 3, 2013 by RedLights&Sirens

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If it ever comes down to an armed revolution then it probably doesn't matter whether the revolutionaries are registered to vote. It might imply that a critical mass of citizens have decided that voting can't ever bring the desired results.

 

Polls can be butchered, mis-applied, and mis-interpreted in uncountable ways. However, the statistical theory is sound if a poll is expertly done. If the sample is properly-selected and the questions properly phrased, then you can get a dang accurate unbiased result with a surprisingly small sample.

 

The statistics calculated on the sample size give the expected error bars, such as "expected accurate to within +/- 3 percent" or whatever.

 

One of my old perfessors was a consulting psychologist who made a goodly hunk of change in his spare time from corporations, doing commercial polls on more mundane matters such as folks' opinion of toothpaste or soft drinks, where the companies don't want sugar-coated answers but are paying good money for good unbiased data. Which can be gathered if one is careful about it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If it ever comes down to an armed revolution then it probably doesn't matter whether the revolutionaries are registered to vote. It might imply that a critical mass of citizens have decided that voting can't ever bring the desired results.

 

Polls can be butchered, mis-applied, and mis-interpreted in uncountable ways. However, the statistical theory is sound if a poll is expertly done. If the sample is properly-selected and the questions properly phrased, then you can get a dang accurate unbiased result with a surprisingly small sample.

 

The statistics calculated on the sample size give the expected error bars, such as "expected accurate to within +/- 3 percent" or whatever.

 

One of my old perfessors was a consulting psychologist who made a goodly hunk of change in his spare time from corporations, doing commercial polls on more mundane matters such as folks' opinion of toothpaste or soft drinks, where the companies don't want sugar-coated answers but are paying good money for good unbiased data. Which can be gathered if one is careful about it.

That's where the whole problem of polling is. It is also why polling is such a desireable tool to sway public

opinion. Most polling is probably not honest. After all, it is done by someone who wants to see something

in a particular fashion, like a news agency, or a political candidate who needs something to back up his

position, if he or she doesn't make it up, like Pelosi and Reid tend to do.

 

If you really want an honest poll, it should be done by how you suggest, Lester, and the sample should be

much higher and geographically honest. Taking a poll of welfare recipients from the inner city on a topic they

know little about, or the people that it affects, would almost always be skewed to the point of silliness. I never

understood how you could take a 1000 people and claim some kind of national result. There are some math

forms way over my head, but that is so high, it's on another planet.

 

We also found out how wrong polling was in the last election. Of course, there were probably other factors

involved, also.

[JayC]

I'm going to say if 29% of people are willing to tell a strange over the phone they believe a revolution might be coming, that the number of people who really feel that way is a lot higher.  There are a lot of people who won't speak to family members or their best friends about this subject, let alone some stranger on the phone.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Exactly, Jay. Just from people who would fear retribution from some government authority, and political correctness,

would keep many from even answering such questions.

[glock55]

Finding a poll worth reading is as difficult as finding a honest politician!

You want to know what people think and believe look at were they spend their money.

Just my two cents worth!

[RobertNashville]

Armed rebellion...what a great idea.  :screwy:

 

I can't imagine any scenario where such a rebellion would turn out well for either side; more likely just kill a lot of people.

[Raoul]

Armed rebellion...what a great idea.  :screwy:

 

I can't imagine any scenario where such a rebellion would turn out well for either side; more likely just kill a lot of people.

I don't disagree, but you have to admit that we live in interesting times.

[Chucktshoes]

Armed rebellion...what a great idea. :screwy:

I can't imagine any scenario where such a rebellion would turn out well for either side; more likely just kill a lot of people.

As someone who leans heavily towards the side of shooting tyrants (and their sycophants) I have never pretended otherwise in my discussions on the subject. EVERYONE loses in this equation. Even so, the statists insist on pushing us ever closer to this outcome. There is a sizable number of people in this country who value liberty over breath. Nowhere near a majority, but a large enough determined minority to at least make a good fight of it. If only 3% of the number of the people (according to this poll) who think that armed rebellion is necessary were to pick up their guns and do what is necessary, you are talking about nearly 3 million people. That is more than enough to take the heads of the tyrants who wish to rule us who refuse to be ruled. Edited May 3, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[BrasilNuts]

I'm sure there is a small (very small) number of people that want rebellion, I doubt any of the people in this thread want it, I know I don't.

War is never a desirable thing, but at times it is necessary.

As long as politicians keep trying to make us criminals and take away our rights and freedoms there will be the possibility of armed rebellion.

Some would have us continue merrily down the path we're on and continue to compromise all of our rights and freedoms.

[Jonnin]

Its a concern.  And I doubt we would like the outcome.  If it comes to actual armed conflict inside the USA,  what I personally see happening is not a bunch of folks like us leading an honorable fight to re-establish the constitution and a free country.   Far from it.  I see millions of angry poor who have been told that they are owed a better life rising up to destroy the "rich" folks that have "oppressed" them.   In other words, the armed revolution that I see coming is a massive uprising of the 'poor'.   A very, very large number of people in this country feel they have been cheated by the "rich" folks and "deserve" a cut.

 

Thankfully I see most of THAT happening in large cities, which is sort of ok by me --- cities are the source of 9/10ths of our problems.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Jonnin

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm sure there is a small (very small) number of people that want rebellion, I doubt any of the people in this thread want it, I know I don't.

War is never a desirable thing, but at times it is necessary.

As long as politicians keep trying to make us criminals and take away our rights and freedoms there will be the possibility of armed rebellion.

Some would have us continue merrily down the path we're on and continue to compromise all of our rights and freedoms.

I may have missed something, but I doubt anyone "wants" rebellion. It's more like people are being pushed into

a situation they don't want to happen. Kind of like backing a wild animal into a corner. What's the outcome there?

 

Some things are inevitable, unless cower is the rule of the day.

[Randall53]

This course was set long before any of us on this board were born, we just have the unfortunate luck to be around to watch the end.

that' exactly what I thought as i read this thread.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Listening to Quinn and Rose yesterday morning, I heard Quinn mention one of the former members of

Weather Underground(I think) and played an old recording, in the 70's I think, also, about the discourse

of the liberal desire. One of them is something common in just about all liberal speech, or doctrine, as

far as I can tell: depopulation by sending to re-training camps in the southwest US, and if not successful,

outright killing. I hope I got that correct, because this guy used to be one of them, and ratted them out.

 

Maybe Mav heard it, also. :D

 

If this is the case, you have identified who has planned your extinction, so you or I haven't become anything

more than someone who will defend the right to life and liberty. It's sad it could come to it, but I don't think

life loving people have started it.

 

Another place I remember that theme is in the book "Rainbow Six" by Clancy. It takes de-population to the

ultimate. I'm not using that word lightly, either, because when you add abortion, tree huggers who think humans

shouldn't inhabit the earth, global warming as reasoning for their goal, you can sum liberalism up with one

word: death. I call that evil.

 

Being radicalized is much more common with the left side than anything someone could put to the right. They

have blown up buildings, pipelines, spiked trees, convinced many that abortion should be about choice(kinder,

gentler radicalization), enslaved people with welfare. Unless someone wants to start the argument back up that

Hitler came from some kind of extreme right wing, look up who raised and influenced him before you go there.

He and Stalin were essentially soul mates in that respect.

 

Just so you know, that conflict began decades ago. It will just end up in people dying for their convictions,

on both sides. It all depends on how much people will take.

[Jonnin]

Being radicalized is much more common with the left side than anything someone could put to the right. They

have blown up buildings, pipelines, spiked trees, convinced many that abortion should be about choice(kinder,

gentler radicalization), enslaved people with welfare. Unless someone wants to start the argument back up that

Hitler came from some kind of extreme right wing, look up who raised and influenced him before you go there.

He and Stalin were essentially soul mates in that respect.

 

Sort of.  I see it as a circle, not a line, though.  The far right is as ugly as the far left, but far less common.   If you take it to extremes, the right leads to a strong military government or even a king type figure.   It leads to military expansion and might makes right type behaviors.   Often it leads to a form of nationalism that is intolerant of everything else, which can lead to racist elements and an ego that "we are superior and deserve the best, and we shall take what we want from the lesser beings".  

 

Extremism of anything --- political, religious, cultural, etc --- leads to violence.  Once a faction becomes so sure that their path is the one and only way to exist, tolerance is thrown away, and violence is inevitable.  Once this state is reached, oddly, the far left and far right merge and the distinctions blur. 

 

Ironically, the extreme left today uses violence to combat what they see as injustice and intolerance.   They are, at the extreme in the USA, intolerant of intolerance, which is funny to me.  

 

By most folks' definitions, you get

extreme left: socialism/communism

extreme right: police state, king, nazis(?).

extreme libertarians: anarchy

 

and all 3 of those (and the others I did not bother to list) become very similar in the long run, using the time tested and proven methods of mass executions, brain washing, political prisons/ camps,  heavy handed enforcer arm, dependent peasant populations, military conquest, and so on.  

[BrasilNuts]

I may have missed something, but I doubt anyone "wants" rebellion. It's more like people are being pushed into
a situation they don't want to happen. Kind of like backing a wild animal into a corner. What's the outcome there?
 
Some things are inevitable, unless cower is the rule of the day.

My post was pointed more at Roberts comment about armed rebellion being crazy or stupid.

When I said "small" I meant the fruitcakes (think Westboro church crazy) out there, not any measurable percentage.

We're on the same page, I was trying to say basically the same thing as you I guess it just didn't come across that way.

[tnhawk]

I'd think many voters would be wary of answering questions about armed revolution, when questioned by an unknown person.