See other Resistance Articles
Title: Nearly 30% of Americans advocate for an armed rebellion
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://rt.com/usa/americans-revolution-armed-percent-738/
Published: Jul 7, 2014
Author: staff
Post Date: 2014-07-07 15:56:03 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 271
Comments: 24
Nearly one-third of Americans say an armed revolution might need to occur in the next few years to prevent an escalating war against constitutional liberties, a new study finds. Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind surveyed 863 US residents randomly in late April and found that 29 percent of those polled believe a revolution isn’t just imminent but imperative. According to the study, 29 percent of Americans agree that “an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties” during the next few years. Forty-seven percent said they disagreed with the statement entirely, with one-fifth of the sample saying they weren’t sure how to answer. When quizzing only the most conservative of respondents, though, the call for revolution is supported by a much more significant chunk of the sample pool. PublicMind found that 44 percent of Republicans polled in the survey agree that an armed revolt is the answer to an apparent infringement of liberties. By comparison, 27 percent Independents agreed with the statement, as did only 18 percent of Democrats polled. Pollsters say there is a reason for this inkling towards revolution, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that it involves a constitutional right that has become increasingly more of a contested issue among members of Congress and regular citizens alike in recent month. At the heart of this issue, suggests PublicMind, is the gun control debate that has rekindled discussion of the Second Amendment since last year’s Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shootings. According to the results of a second question asked during the study, 73 percent of Democrats say Congress needs new gun laws to protect Americans from gun violence, but 65 percent of Republicans are against any changes whatsoever to current legislation.. “If there was a bipartisan moment after Sandy Hook to pass gun control legislation, it’s past,” Fairleigh Dickinson professor of political science Dan Cassino writes in the report that accompanies the poll. “Partisan views have strongly re-asserted themselves, and there’s no sign that they’ll get any weaker.” “The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” Cassino adds. “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.” Earlier this week, RT covered a separate poll conducted recently by Fox News in which respondents were asked, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” The result of that survey when coupled with similar ones made during the last dozen years or so reveals that Americans are less willing now to part with personal freedoms in exchange for an added sense of security than they were after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “Whether or not the government overreacted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (and, given the information available at the time, reasonable people can disagree), Americans then broadly supported a vigorous domestic counterterrorism policy,” Alan Rozenshtein wrote for Lawfare Blog. “This time around, a rights-restrictive approach might not garner the same public support — if indeed that’s the road the government intends to go down.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#1. To: Horse (#0)
Lets git er done.
This is a revealing article: Russian news outlet takes strong interest in American political instability.
My ancestry goes back to Ben Franklin and Joseph Warren. We have no men like that now.
It would be interesting to ask the 44% whether they would be in favor of continued aid to Israel and retention of the Federal Reserve, or if they think the constitution needs to be changed.
The poll shows sentiments right now. The dollar will collapse soon enough. We will have 2 million Drug Gang members soon enough. When the cities are burned to the ground after Food Stamps are cancelled by inflation, you will cease to be involved in intellectual debates. You can side with the local white crowd or go to the black or Hispanic enclaves. Or you can hope for a US military coup.
Are you suggesting that the local, white, Zionist crowd might not be willing to debate? I have my doubts, too.
I'm certain white progressives & Zionists will continue to side w/the darks if order breaks down.
JT... there are two factors here: religion/ethics and the citizen's lifetime of media access prior to the order breakdown. Conservative Christians are largely "anti-socialist" domestically and pro-intervention internationally. There's a reason for that domestic-side perspective, and liberals know it well: it's code for racial affinity. It's not fully "Adam Smith" approved, tough-as-nails capitalism that shapes most of these opinions among conservative Christians. Do you and I differ with liberals on that assessment? Agnostics and atheists are either liberal or anarcho-capitalists. The non-liberals described above source their opinions from deep-seated moral and ethical models that are difficult to change regardless of prevailing conditions. They also consume media from NewsMax, WND, FOX, NR, and so forth. Let's look at an example: Talk Radio. A good list appears at conservativetalkshows.com. Can you find one "pro-socialist" on that list? No, far from it. Now name one from that list who has been critical of Israel and Zionism? Have you ever heard of one of them advocating open immigration or amnesty? (Other than supporting the "lesser of two evils" candidates.) Has any one of those hosts wavered on the second amendment? Now name one who hasn't said that order should be radically changed because of lost freedoms. Now name one who hasn't profusely denied that "anti-socialism" equates to racial affinity. Rush Limbaugh alone has huge influence on the typical American conservative, Christian or otherwise. A good many American conservatives have simply ignored the Zionist question due to shared concerns about immigration of Muslims with Zionists. Most believe 9/11 was a total surprise and that the Mideast war was good for American interests. This means that pressure to intervene in foreign affairs on behalf of Zionists will continue to come from the right even after order breaks down. How is this so? Wealth and power drives the media sources I mentioned previously. That wealth will quickly turn into guns and butter for certain factions during the collapse. I agree with you that there are large numbers of "conservatives" who may become "liberals" during a breakdown in order, in other words supporting which ever side sounds like it's winning for the sake of security. Any breakdown would involve factionalism all across the political map. And this is exactly how it's been engineered to work: political instability might disrupt our energy, transportation, and food supplies, but the wars for Israel would continue. There are, of course, other objectives keeping military interests alive during a social discontinuity: liberals and conservatives both take pride and up until recently, have enjoyed economic benefits of being a part of a global empire, if for different reasons. Therefore, interventionists could reemerge on top on the other side of any considerable upheaval. Lather, rinse, repeat. Today, people like Charles Lindbergh don't even have access to the media anymore. And that was before our second biggest mistake of all, and our worst in recent history.
If one of them would crack on the immigration issue, it had to be Glenn Beck: freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...gi?ArtNum=167466&Disp=All He's the least consistent of these ladies/gents of the airwaves. I don't think this changes the persuasiveness of my argument: pro-Israel conservative media celebrities tend to be in favor of enforcing immigration law, permitting pro-empire, interventionist media consumers (who are usually also concerned about border security) to form and keep a solid alliance with them.
#20. To: Deasy (#19)
yikes
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Cynicom, Horse (#1)
#3. To: Deasy (#2)
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
PublicMind found that 44 percent of Republicans polled in the survey agree that an armed revolt is the answer to an apparent infringement of liberties. By comparison, 27 percent Independents agreed with the statement, as did only 18 percent of Democrats polled.
We have no men like that now.
You do OK. Also, I hope and believe there are more people like Snowden inside the Beltway who want to return us to liberty but aren't saying so publicly yet.
#6. To: Deasy (#4)
#7. To: Horse (#6)
You can side with the local white crowd or go to the black or Hispanic enclaves.
#13. To: Deasy (#7)
Are you suggesting that the local, white, Zionist crowd might not be willing to debate? I have my doubts, too.
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
I'm certain white ... Zionists will continue to side w/the darks if order breaks down.
#19. To: Jethro Tull (#18)
Have you ever heard of one of them advocating open immigration or amnesty? (Other than supporting the "lesser of two evils" candidates.)
Replies to Comment # 19. pro-Israel conservative media celebrities
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.