New poll: 44% of Republicans think an armed revolution may be necessary to protect civil liberties in the next few years.


http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/

A reputable University that has a reputable polling function

So I should buy all teh gunz?

first

Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before

My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars


D'you wear a black armband
When they shot the man
Who said "Peace could last forever"
And in my first memories
They shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised land

And
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
You're power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war

[h=1]Guns N' Roses[/h]

Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as
opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents

All those numbers are really quite staggering. Where did they find these people? Or maybe people are just this stupid and can't read basic English - "necessary...within the next few years..."

My next question would be how many of these people actually voted. If those numbers actually reflect reality, you might have expected every incumbent to lose the election, or at least a 3rd party/independent having some real momentum.

gut;1438857 wrote:Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as
opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents

All those numbers are really quite staggering. Where did they find these people? Or maybe people are just this stupid and can't read basic English - "necessary...within the next few years..."

My next question would be how many of these people actually voted. If those numbers actually reflect reality, you might have expected every incumbent to lose the election, or at least a 3rd party/independent having some real momentum.

That's actually a common phenomenon we see. Congress' approval rating is something in the low teens, yet a majority of incumbents win.
Why?

It's the perception that "my congressman is ok" but the others are terrible. If there were a nat'l election on all of them they all would be voted out. Congress as a whole's approval is in the teens. But nearly every congressperson's approval is between 45 and 55%, kinda crazy.


Yea, the 18% dems are the minority dems in the southern states I would imagine. Still a bit shocking.

Are you sure that this was not a Rapture poll?

Very true.

I still can't get past anything remotely close to even "18%". If the question were about a trend or perhaps years in the future, I could see it. But "within the next few years"?!? You'd think these people must have all recently been subjected to a warrantless raid and search.

Doesn't say much for common sense and rational logic of the average American. The simpler explanation might be that the average American gets no news (saw somewhere that a shocking number of people under 30 get their news from Colbert and Jon Stewart). I'm not really seeing how anyone could develop such a view if they follow anything that could be considered mainstream media.

Commander of Awesome;1438849 wrote:New poll: 44% of Republicans think an armed revolution may be necessary to protect civil liberties in the next few years.


http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/

A reputable University that has a reputable polling function

So I should buy all teh gunz?

Must be the same polls where Quaker was getting his ever-so-accurate information leading into the election last year. Where it was an iron-clad lock that Romney was winning.

Commander of Awesome;1438863 wrote:That's actually a common phenomenon we see. Congress' approval rating is something in the low teens, yet a majority of incumbents win.
Why?

It's the perception that "my congressman is ok" but the others are terrible. If there were a nat'l election on all of them they all would be voted out. Congress as a whole's approval is in the teens. But nearly every congressperson's approval is between 45 and 55%, kinda crazy.


Yea, the 18% dems are the minority dems in the southern states I would imagine. Still a bit shocking.

You see that at about all levels. I live in a rural area and for years, all you'd see on a more localized message board (which is defunct now, I think) and hear about was how bad the local politicians were and how the whole "good-ole-boys" system needed overthrown. And then the election would happen and the same ol' same ol' would win by about a 2-to-1 margin. Of course, here, it's probably more of a vocal minority complaining while the majority is cool or at least complacent with what's going on.

There, I'd bet you're right. People think their Congressman is tolerable/okay/good because they see his press releases and hear about what he's doing and advocating. But when the body as a whole is mired down in constant arguing, bickering and getting little/nothing done, the body as a whole gets a horrible rating.

Heretic;1438870 wrote:Must be the same polls where Quaker was getting his ever-so-accurate information leading into the election last year. Where it was an iron-clad lock that Romney was winning.

That was the Romney internal polls, FD was actually part of Nate Silver's algorithm that nailed the results.

I hope/think it's just a reflection of their feelings on Obama. Like, when after Bush was elected, I'm sure a significant amount of Dems said they'd move to Canada. Probably don't actually think that but it underscored their feels in a hyperbolic way... I hope...

Perhaps it is in reaction to the Fed's massive purchasing of ammo, and obama's lecture yesterday to OSU grad's about being wary of those who voice concern over government tyranny.



Unbelievable; it is as if we are in the twilight zone.

QuakerOats;1438873 wrote:obama's lecture yesterday to OSU grad's about being wary of those who voice concern over government tyranny.

I think it could happen to some degree, but not within 5 years. Maybe not even my lifetime.

So, 44% of R's think it may take armed revolution?
Well, can anyone name another time other than the civil war when armed revolution took place?

Lesson: We have survived through worse, and it did not take armed revolution to solve those problems. Hell look at the 19th century other than the civil war.
Trying to say we need to armed revolution is laughable and shows a lack of comprehensive of American history.

ptown_trojans_1;1438915 wrote:So, 44% of R's think it may take armed revolution?
Well, can anyone name another time other than the civil war when armed revolution took place?

Lesson: We have survived through worse, and it did not take armed revolution to solve those problems. Hell look at the 19th century other than the civil war.
Trying to say we need to armed revolution is laughable and shows a lack of comprehensive of American history.

There have been other attempts. American Revolutionary War, the Texas Revolution both come to mind.

Maybe they only polled people from Texas.

Commander of Awesome;1438924 wrote:There have been other attempts. American Revolutionary War, the Texas Revolution both come to mind.

The first was the founding of the country and the second was not inside the U.S. technically as Texas was in Mexico.

[video=youtube;7ud3pK5Wa90][/video]

Commander of Awesome;1438941 wrote:[video=youtube;7ud3pK5Wa90][/video]

You don't like people being encouraged to vote?

I guess this just means 44% think their rights (read guns) are going to be taken, harder to get, or even denied access. Or even the ammunition will be confiscated and leave the market next to empty.

Unfortunately for those 44%-ers, there is no evidence to support such a claim!

QuakerOats;1438873 wrote:Perhaps it is in reaction to the Fed's massive purchasing of ammo, and obama's lecture yesterday to OSU grad's about being wary of those who voice concern over government tyranny.



Unbelievable; it is as if we are in the twilight zone.

That is the first thing that went through my mind when I heard Obama's comments at OSU. I actually found his comments quite unnerving.

I agree with the thought that those numbers dealing with actual 'revolution' seem pretty high....but if you think of it in terms of secession, which of course might trigger armed reaction, maybe those those numbers aren't really that outrageous.

It will come to that eventually, this country is divided more everyday. Anyone with a brain can see the way the wind is blowing in this country, more government control, more government spending, more people dependent on the government dole for their livelihood, not enough people with jobs to pay for it all. It will come crashing down eventually.

Jesus f'ing Christ.
Do you all not know history?
Shit, this country has been more divided numerous times in history and it did not fall into seccession or war.
The late 19th century with millions in immigrants turned the country upside down, breaking down the socal frabic, and no massive revolt then.
In the Great Depression saw the rise of Socialism and various other idea and that did not break the country apart.
Even during the Cold War, and hell even in 1968, the country did not break apart.
We are no where near 1968 levels.
Geesh, it is like the sky is falling.
It is bad, yes, but is it worse than any other time in U.S. history? No.
I'm sick of this, "Oh my God the country is falling apart crap."
No, it is not. We have been through worse and survived. We will endure.

ptown_trojans_1;1439194 wrote:Jesus f'ing Christ.
Do you all not know history?
****, this country has been more divided numerous times in history and it did not fall into seccession or war.
The late 19th century with millions in immigrants turned the country upside down, breaking down the socal frabic, and no massive revolt then.
In the Great Depression saw the rise of Socialism and various other idea and that did not break the country apart.
Even during the Cold War, and hell even in 1968, the country did not break apart.
We are no where near 1968 levels.
Geesh, it is like the sky is falling.
It is bad, yes, but is it worse than any other time in U.S. history? No.
I'm sick of this, "Oh my God the country is falling apart crap."
No, it is not. We have been through worse and survived. We will endure.

What history book have you read where any prior world superpower never collapsed? Just curious since you are obviously a history buff.

pmoney25;1439205 wrote:What history book have you read where any prior world superpower never collapsed? Just curious since you are obviously a history buff.

The U.S. is not even 300 years old.
Other powers took waayyy longer to fall.

Besides, we are not even close to any of those points.

This period now, I wouldn't even rank it as bad as other periods where we survived. From 1965-73, we survived.
The post civil war period, the 1870s-1910s, we survived.

ptown_trojans_1;1439215 wrote:Besides, we are not even close to any of those points.

That's probably what all of those empires thought, too.