Skip to main content

"29% of registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to a poll released today by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind. The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure. Eighteen percent (18%) of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent (27%) of independents and 44 percent (44%) of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters. The poll, conducted between April 22-28, surveyed 863 randomly selected registered voters across the country and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points."

Link to poll: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/...

29% of the American adult population is about 69 million people. Sixty nine MILLION Americans think armed rebellion might soon be necessary. A hundred thousand new assault rifles placed into circulation in this country every month--not to mention the hunting rifles, sniper rifles, target rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic pistols--millions of high capacity magazines, billions of rounds of ammunition.

It is what it is folks, It is what it is. Don't get angry with me, I'm just the translator.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well They've Been Told This for 20 Years (31+ / 0-)

    by their spiritual leaders and news sources, and that number is pretty close to the population of the hard right wing, plus a few of the left who think it may be necessary to overthrow the corporations.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:24:01 PM PDT

    •  So that would be 27% + 2% (3+ / 0-)

      The first is the Crazification Factor (of Obama vs. Alan Keyes) plus

      a few of the left who think it may be necessary to overthrow the corporations
      Of course the birth-death model since 2004 could skew the CF.

      There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

      by virginislandsguy on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:33:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  they just want their country back, gooserock (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      it's been taken over by the colored folks

      those 29 percent are not hard right.  they are hard racist.  

      racists come in all flavors.  left, right and center.

      •  and most of them are just cowardly bullies (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos, Miggles, duufus, Yasuragi

        violent revolution is just a fantasy.  they aren't going to risk their lives.  they only go for easy targets.  they will just keep taking out their impotent rage by beating their wives and kids.  

        •  I think that there are racists ... (3+ / 0-)

          ... in that 29% figure, no doubt, probably a majority of that figure, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would lie just for some justification to keep their guns. Also, the hyperbole has gotten to many of them. And for a few, this was a form of protest for taxes or other things that Tea Partiers hold dear to their cold, shrivelled hearts.

          If you remember, in 2010, there were 27% of those polled who claimed they thought the President was born in Kenya. I don't for a minute believe that that large of a number actually believed it. They just answered that poll question as a form of protest, even if it made them look as dumb as Bachmann or Gohmert.

          They revel in their stupidity and would just as soon wallow in a pool of dumb as say anything good about the President or Government.  

          I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

          by Tortmaster on Wed May 01, 2013 at 09:34:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Most" -- probably right (0+ / 0-)

          It doesn't take a high percentage of 69 million to hurt our country quite a bit.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed May 01, 2013 at 09:48:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  visionaries they ain't (7+ / 0-)

    There has been no civil war in any country at any time in history like the one they are imagining. They also need to know that most revolutions get highjacked by the military dictatorships or fascist theocrats. Who is it gonna be? I'm going to go polish my gun now.

  •  I would love to see a geographic breakdown (12+ / 0-)

    plus a geo/party breakdown such as GOP South.

  •  Armed Revolt Against (11+ / 0-)

    The government that their party controls? Whatever for?

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:34:42 PM PDT

  •  I think next time they poll (15+ / 0-)

    they should ask: would you personally take up arms? I'll bet the numbers would drop dramatically.

    Revolt in the abstract is just that.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:35:52 PM PDT

    •  I think they would mostly say "of course I'd take (5+ / 0-)

      part."  The illusion of being brave and bold is what keeps these people wearing "cammies" and talking tough at the local bar.  Confronted with actual armed resistance they would, I believe, choose the Ted Nugent option and crap their pants.

      Generally I disagree with the view that armed resistance to the US military would  be impossible.  It has been pointed out to me that the places which have mired our military in ineffectiveness--Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan--have adjoining national jurisdictions for refuge, and nation states willing  to  back the "rebels."  But I think that rebels in the US could flee to Mexico and Canada--both of which have wild parts that would conceal, and surely China and Mr. Putin would be glad to encourage the efforts.

      So I come back to an estimate of the loud-mouthed "wannabes" which is that actual danger of being harmed would bring a new focus of mind on the possibilities.  Saying they'll welcome the revolution and take part is easy; doing is hard.

      Aside from that, however, it increasingly seems to me that we have already  begun the transition to a new form of feudalism.  And I see no clear way to divert that process.

  •  863 participants seems like a pretty small... (13+ / 0-)

    sampling to me to represent the views of the entire country.

    Just sayin'

    "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone" - John Maynard Keynes

    by markthshark on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:37:10 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for your concern (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, remembrance

    but a representative has already been in touch with us about the civil war threats, thanks.

    If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress. – Gabrielle Giffords

    by tytalus on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:46:29 PM PDT

  •  stupid: pollers don't incl "talk radio listeners" (7+ / 0-)

    why pollers don't include them as a regular category is asinine.

    it should be a mark of political ineptitude for a political poll designed to determine extremism or ignorance on a subject not to include that question.

    we might then finally know where most of it's coming from,

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:49:24 PM PDT

  •  Well, unless they're buying heavy machine guns, (11+ / 0-)

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery and missiles, regularly artillery, mortars and other man portable crew served infantry squad's automatic weapons, tanks, APC's etc... it is unlikely that any armed insurrection is going to be successful. The reason this nation had a civil war, was partly because President Buchanan handed over control of the federal arsenals in the various states to control of the Governors of those states in 1859. This is unlikely to happen in the modern era.

    People who believe that they could successfully carry out an armed insurrection against the federal government with small arms and gutsy action are ignorant fools. The savagery of modern industrial warfare is beyond the comprehension of most people. Such warfare would require a commitment to an asymmetrical warfare response by the insurgents over at least a decade, which would embitter and divide this nation irreparably. Who would be the terrorists then?

    Encouraging this type of speculation is dangerous and absurd, even polling on this question is inane.

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:56:46 PM PDT

    •  Is your argument that the Afghanis lost (7+ / 0-)

      to the Soviets?

      Are you trying to claim the Iraqi resistance failed to drive us out?

      I do not advocate armed struggle against our government.  We are no where near a place where it would be remotely preferable to non-violent resistance.  

      That being said, the history of the 20th century consists of rag tag  militias equipped in the main with small arms defeating major empires.  Not just once, but time and time. again.

      In the end, we'd stagger out of the chaos three or four different nations, after 10 or 20 million people died.  It's very unlikely that anything positive - by your standards or mine - would be achieved.

      But many of the people answering "yes" to this question would see that outcome as success.

      Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

      by JesseCW on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, not quite (5+ / 0-)

        "the history of the 20th century consists of rag tag  militias equipped in the main with small arms defeating major empires.  Not just once, but time and time. again."

        It's easy to overestimate the concept of "rag tag militias", but most 'guerilla' victories actually involved conventional forces, and the rest involved massive aid from outside... neither of which any American rebels are likely to get. Successful guerilla campaigns require real military resources.

        For instance, the Afghans against the Soviets were supplied with heavy weaponry by outside powers, relying mainly on bombs, rockets, and land mines.   the Finns stopped the Soviets with their own army (and German help), the Vietnamese had a real army and artillery against the French, and against us had a real army and an air force that shot down more of our planes than vice versa (the VC guerillas were not effective).

        Even in this century, the insurgents rely almost solely on IEDs made with stolen caches of military-grade high explosives. They avoid gunfights when at all possible.  Because our troops don't stop at guns.  

        If you want to see what small arms can do against an army, ask the Native Americans.  They fought their asses off, sometimes for decades.  But all they had were their own personal guns. Without heavy weaponry, your days as a fighting force are numbered.

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:27:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The forces that actually defeated the (3+ / 0-)

          Soviets weren't the brutal backward clowns we were equipping with stingers and Chinese AK's.

          Rather, it was Massoud's forces, with very little outside help, that did the lions share of the fighting.

          The Viet Cong were highly effective at doing exactly what they set out to do.  If you think wars are decided by kill ratios you're profoundly confused about the purpose of war.

          Fallujah wasn't a block by block slog only because of IEDs (and it's kind of a trip to think anyone actually believes explosives are hard to come by in the chaos of a civil war) but also because of ongoing fire.  

          The Iraqis had no better parity of arms when they drove out the British 90 years earlier despite being gassed.

          Native Americans were defeated by (almost entirely unintentional) biological warfare and by overwhelming numbers.  They would not have prevailed against 10 to 20 times their numbers even if they had been similarly equipped, and very few battles in the Indian Wars until the last 30 years of the 19th century saw cannon playing a very big role.

          From Algeria to Ireland, colonial powers have in fact been driven out time after time by poorly armed peoples willing to die have defeated heavily technologically superior adversaries who were much, much less willing to die.

          Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

          by JesseCW on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:49:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RUNDOWN

            Massoud's forces were a highly-trained, uniformed army, equipped with heavy weaponry bought via trade from other countries.  Asymmetric, sure.  But nothing like a ragtag militia of dudes with their hobby arsenals.

            Going by kill counts is precisely why you might think the VC were effective.  What they were effective at was turning South Vietnamese against them through brutal terror campaigns.  Even the North Vietnamese leaders got sick of them, and by the end of the war they were marginalized and folded into other groups.  The NVA did far more damage to us than the VC did.

            Mentioning rebellions of decolonization are a red herring, for the simple reason that the colonizers generally quit because the colony wasn't worth keeping anymore.  That's not the case in a civil war, and indeed, Algerian guerillas had a much harder time against other Algerians in the '90's.

            But even so, the Algerians had basically lost their war of independence by 1958, and it was only attempted coups in France that led to a weakening they could exploit.  The Irish did have success in the 1910's and 20's (financed by their large American diaspora), but they only succeeded once the British were exhausted and broke after World War I.   That's hardly a recipe you can count on.

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:06:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Only because they are fighting in their home (4+ / 0-)

        turf.  The Russians could go home as soon as they realize that it's not worth their while to stick around.

        Also- the critical thing to remember about the afghans is that they have killed far more of their own people, than they have any foreign invaders, be it soviets or americans. That's what guns are great for. Not for killing invading armies. But for killing your own kind and killing your own civillian womena nd children. Afghnistan and Iraq have illustrated that quite clearly.

        •  I think I was pretty clear that we'd be talking (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bruddaone

          about a massive bloodbath and tens of millions of people being killed.

          What doesn't seem to sink in is that this is exactly what a lot of these people envision when they talk about armed revolt.

          They'd be happy to see the whole nation in ruins and 20 or 30 or 40 million dead if it meant the North East and West Coast were severed from the rest of the US.

          Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

          by JesseCW on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:52:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bad analogy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KJG52

        The soviets were a foreign occupation army.  The US in Iraq was/is a foreign occupation.

      •  The Afghan-Soviet War was a localized tribal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        conflict until the US and Saudi Arabia started funding the insurgents and supplying modern anti-aircraft missiles and guns to the Afghans. The idiocy of believing that there are insurgents capable of supporting an insurgency in the US comparable to the Mujahadeen's fight against the Soviets is laughable. Where is the Pakistan surrogate in this insurgent scenario, Canada, Mexico... This whole line of argument is laughable, we conducted a limited war in Iraq, continue to in Afghanistan and neither country posed an actual existential threat to the US. A domestic insurgency would threaten the very existence of the country, the government would have little choice but to react as Lincoln did- all out war.

        "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

        by KJG52 on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:06:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The problem I have when people present this... (5+ / 0-)

      is that the military will stay intact, and that the chain of command will remain unbroken....I would think that's a foolish assumption.

      29% of the U.S. population is 69 million people roughly...the size of the U.S. Military in whole is roughly 3 million.

      Even if 1% of that 29% take up arms, that's still double of what the military has in personnel....

      Let's say 1% of those are Vets with prior military service who know how to use the weapons you listed....that would be a big problem.

      I wouldn't be so quick to be so dismissive....

    •  Rec'd for the last line: (4+ / 0-)
      Encouraging this type of speculation is dangerous and absurd, even polling on this question is inane.

      To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men. -Abraham Lincoln

      by Eyesbright on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:37:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you think it's a given (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bruddaone, Yasuragi

      That the US military, regardless of orders, will turn their weapons on the American people?  I've had conversations with some of these crazies and its about the only thing I see as being true.  I'm not convinced they'd drop bombs or fire into neighborhoods where their parents or children live.  If that's what you base your security on, I'd think of a plan B.

  •  On the bright side, about 8% of those 69 (13+ / 0-)

    million are in any physical condition to make credible combatants.

    Somehow, these guys always think it's really important to have 17 rounds in their pistol instead of 7, but never think much about whether being able to jog 5 miles might beat being able to jog at most 50 yards.

    Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

    by JesseCW on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:59:44 PM PDT

  •  Maybe they were listening to Al (0+ / 0-)
  •  One might propose (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, truong son traveler

    general pessimism about the future.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:21:07 PM PDT

  •  if you're a racist ... (3+ / 0-)

    ... and want to maintain white rule when whites are no longer the majority, then yes, you may need to impose it at the point of a gun one gerrymandering no longer suffices.

  •  I venture there are a few Kossacks (6+ / 0-)

    who would agree with that 29%.  I see enough talk around here about tumbrils to know I'm not wrong.  

  •  The more likely outcome... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Involuntary Exile, Yasuragi

    Is that you would have a state that elects so many baggers that it decides to secede. An "armed insurrection" wouldn't be very popular among normals, ordinary people who just want to live their lives and mind their own business. But a state that has a majority bagger population might be able to pull it off.

    We have this myth in our minds of a bunch of angry rednecks taking up arms and trying to depose Washington. That isn't likely to happen for a number of reasons. The biggest being lack of cooperation by the people of Washington and the rest of the country. Washington only governs by general acceptance of their power. Which means even if something like that were to happen, all a state would have to do is say they don't recognize Washington as sovereign anymore and that power goes away.

    The baggers are also assuming that everyone else, including the military, would get on board with whatever crazy agenda they plan to implement. In all likelyhood, the military itself would fall apart and would start turning on each other. And the baggers have always overestimated their support. And all of this is assuming they managed to make it to the Capital or White House without being stopped.  

    •  Just a quick visit to Wikipedia. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      merrywidow, Yasuragi
      ...Is that you would have a state that elects so many baggers that it decides to secede.
      ...all a state would have to do is say they don't recognize Washington as sovereign anymore and that power goes away.
      There's this thing called nullification. Wikipedia says:
      The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution.
      Secession is unconstitutional. Can't be done.
      And the local National Guard in that state with the rebellious senators? The federal government federalizes the local state national guard, and send in national guard troops from out of state. It's been done before.
      A state can't secede. It's a myth, pure and simple.
      •  I think they'd test those waters... (0+ / 0-)

        These are people who think that they can take the government on all on their own. So I honestly think they'd at least test this idea and see how far they'd get. Public apathy would also play a huge roll. If the public doesn't have the stomach for stopping it, the feds might just let them go.

        •  Are there delusional people? Sure. (0+ / 0-)

          Undoubtedly there are even those who share common interests and opinions.
          There are also keyboard artists who make a gigantic leap from this realization to the fantasy of sworn officials of the highest office risking certain impeachment, if not imprisonment, by accommodating secession.
          So?

  •  44% of the GOP. Wow (8+ / 0-)

    I mean, it's depressing that so many Dems believe this, but at 20% or so they are a fringe, whereas almost half the GOP thinks killing other Americans might become necessary at some point.

    And all of this is fueled by the fear selling conspiracy theory regurgitating media and special interests. These lying, fear selling assholes would gladly see us at war with each other, makes divide and conquer easier.

    29% of Americans, and almost half the GOP is batcrap crazy

    I didn't wear a Union Kepi because I want a civil war, I wore one to remind people how horrible it is, and why the North won.

    Regulate banks, not vaginas

    by MinistryOfTruth on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:31:53 PM PDT

  •  Just let them secede. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Involuntary Exile

    No problemo.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:40:24 PM PDT

  •  It'll probably happen. (4+ / 0-)

    As we get closer to 75% unemployment while the "economists" keep showing us with their miles of bullshit charts how much better things are really getting.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:45:03 PM PDT

  •  Religious Right. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Yasuragi

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:46:42 PM PDT

  •  They can meet the rest of us at Gettysburg (0+ / 0-)

    I'm just guessing that most of these folks live in the former Confederate states. It's 150 years ago, but they think somehow they was robbed!

    •  Former Confederate states (0+ / 0-)

      like Kansas, Nebraska, Utah and Idaho. Excepting major metropolitan areas, every other state except New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and California. Including "The Land of Lincoln," Illinois.

      http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/...

      The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

      by bubbajim on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:42:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

        You just excluded the confederate states but added a few that would have joined if they had been states then. More interesting is that the states that fund the country -- NJ, NY, CT, IL, and CA are the exceptions.

  •  I might be a "yes" depending on the question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin, Odysseus

    Do I think armed rebellion is necessary during the rest of the Obama administration? Definitely not. Do I think it could be necessary during my lifetime? Possibly, although I'd put pretty low odds on it. During the remaining history of the United States? Again, possible. Against whatever successor state? Possibly. To steal from Allen Steele, there can be both an extreme-right United Republic of America and an extreme-left Western Hemisphere Union and it doesn't mean you'd want to live under either one.

    •  Perhaps you missed it, but the question is "within (0+ / 0-)

      the next few years".  Now I could see the need for armed rebellion once the United States breaks up in a century or three (or whatever) or even possibly (though not likely) in a few decades if we get someone in who decides to make himself dictator after several years or 50% or higher unemployment.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:37:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ain't nobody gives a damn about the 4th amendment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      It's assumed by many here that the major reasons answer this question positively are racist and right wing.

      The heirarchy of soap box, ballot box, jury box, and ammo box is failing pretty hard on the jury box right now when it comes to questions of illegal search and seizure.

      How do we reinject sanity?

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      There are no Christians in foxholes.

      by Odysseus on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, Yasuragi

    many governments seem to eventually fail when the governed foist the big F.U. I'm hoping for a voting "revolution" (a regaining of public control) but do fear the corporatocracy making a push to oust democracy.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:15:46 PM PDT

  •  die-hard southerners of a certain age (ahem) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yasuragi, chmood

    have been waiting to re-fight the civil war for as long as they've been alive. look at the gop's base. that's who it is.

    •  If this poll is true, very suggestive (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Very Long Range, zett, bruddaone, noway2

      It is proof of a disturbing idea I've had in the wake of Sandy Hook: that the 2nd Amendment really was intended to make it possible for citizens to resist the federal government, and the intense opposition to gun control is due to the fact that many Americans sincerely believe this.

      I could discuss the textual interpretation arguments that support this thesis, but the real proof is in the unfolding of history: one of the most remarkable aspects of the U.S. Civil War is how easily and thoroughly federal authority was swept away in vast parts of the Deep South. The significance of this is rarely highlighted, nor is the fact that having an armed populace, along with state arsenals to arm the militia, made it possible. In other words, the secession of the Deep South is proof of the Second Amendment working as intended: once the population of a State believed that the federal government was becoming tyrannical (by threatening their right to own slaves), the security of a free state (against federal tyranny) was ensured by the fact that the right to keep and bear arms existed.

      That being said, why is this revolutionary (to put it lightly) view becoming more and more prevalent? Because in a similar way in the 1850s, a large part of the population today increasingly  fears they will no longer have control of the federal government, and their liberty/property stakes are threatened. Back then, Southerners were worried that the growth of the free states meant they would lose control of the federal government, which reached its crowning point in 1860 when the Republican Lincoln won the Presidency. Today, the disproportionately white Christian Republicans throughout the country fear they are losing control of the federal government to a coalition of the Other - basically everyone who is not a rich white Christian male; Democrats.

      And like in the 1860s, there's an economic aspect to this fear. Southerners then feared losing their primary source of wealth, slaves. Today, Republicans fear 'socialism', or any policy designed to redistribute (even to the slightest degree) the wealth that they hold. Never mind that for most Republicans, they do not have the wealth of the 1% - notice, most southerners didn't own slaves either! All this talk in the media about how minorities are increasing their numbers politically, the GOPers hear it as clearly as we do, and take 180 degrees the opposite conclusion.

      Now, America is a far different society than it was back then, and even in as red a state as Oklahoma, for example, it is unlikely there will ever be a percentage of the population interested in revolt that comes close to that of the Deep South in 1860. So I don't want to give the impression that I'm screaming the Second American Civil War is right around the corner. But I think this is a case where history matters.

      •  the south has never wanted to be a part of the (3+ / 0-)

        us unless it got its way as to how things were run. the big argument in the run up to the civil war was that the south had only agreed to join the union of states if they got to keep their slaves & the north was violating that agreement by changing the rules & saying they couldn't, so southerners felt they were within their rights to secede.

        it's the same mentality today. listen to the rhetoric coming from rw hate media. there's no compromise. they either get their way or they're taking their toys & going home, so there! and if anyone doesn't like it, too bad. we're not the boss of them, nanny nanny boo boo.

        they believe they're persecuted victims of a democratic process where the majority decides things. they don't agree with the decisions & have tried rigging elections & gerrymandering legislative districts to give them an unfair advantage. armed revolt is their last option. delusional? you bet. but it rakes in the dollars for propaganda factories like fox noise, breitbart.com, drudge, etc.

      •  Traitors don't have to be a majority to start wars (0+ / 0-)

        Secession was pulled off by a rich and powerful minority. The rank and file Confederate citizens routinely said "Rich man's war, poor man's fight". They simply didn't have the political power that a majority would have had if the South had been democratic. Instead they fought back with food riots, desertions, and even militias that controlled territory in opposition to the Confederate government.

        See the book "Bitterly Divided".

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed May 01, 2013 at 10:07:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You forgot the Dem side's view. (0+ / 0-)
        Today, the disproportionately white Christian Republicans throughout the country fear they are losing control of the federal government to a coalition of the Other - basically everyone who is not a rich white Christian male; Democrats.
        That percentage of Dems who are in the 29% are likely looking at things like:
        The LIBOR fraud perpetrated by the big banks, 500 Trillion in size.
        The emerging ICAP fraud perpetrated by the big banks, 380 Trillion in size.
        And all the corporate supremacy that has corrupted the federal government through the public-private revolving door.
  •  Against what are they rebelling? if no one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Miggles, Yasuragi

    actually comes for their guns, what are they rebelling against?

    I really don't know.
    Won't the lack of a black president in a few years be what they really want?

  •  Meh. Less there than meets the (7+ / 0-)

    eye.

    Vague, ambiguous question loaded with positive-valence words like "protect" and "liberty" + affirmation bias = a certain % of respondents will always say yes. You might think a typical, literate adult should be able to cull a precise meaning from it -- but 60 years of public opinion scholarship says otherwise. I'm not losing any sleep over this one.

    Hope you fall on your burger and fries.

    by cardinal on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:39:04 PM PDT

    •  I really have to agree.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cardinal

      It has been proven time and time again that the wording of such polls can have a significant effect on the results achieved.

      Some things I found interesting about the poll though; fully 30% of the sample was 60 or older, 60% were 45 or older, 71% were white. College graduates significantly disagreed with both the CT questions, those with only HS or some college pretty much split on those questions.

      Yeah I'm not losing any sleep either.

      In all honesty I think Americans are too lazy to revolt,
      It would eat into their time watching Housewives and honey-boo-boo and mainlining Doritos.

  •  If aliens invade in 2015 and take over the world.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Yasuragi

    ...then yes an armed rebellion may be necessary.

    But at least aliens would probably be less dysfunctional than this Congress.  Actually, they might be invading for our own good.

  •  I think this poll is skewed and th conclusions too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    I don't think the statemement
    ,

    “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.”
    translates into anything  like: "I'm anxious and willing to take up arms against the USA" as some here want to take it

    Therefore I think all the comments condemning all these people who may or may not have answered the question as stated are as skewed as the poll no doubt was.

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:41:40 PM PDT

  •  unarmed revolts were not on their questionaire (0+ / 0-)
    Eighteen percent (18%) of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent (27%) of independents and 44 percent (44%) of Republicans.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:46:48 PM PDT

  •  "might be ...." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    In the wording of the question allows for some wiggle room.

    Another poll from 15 April, this one from Gallup is open-ended and lists the three issues of importance as being: the economy - 24%, jobs/unemployment - 18% and dissatisfaction with government - 16%.

    Other topics of importance are also listed. Guns/gun control came in near the bottom, at 4%.

    Congressional approval ratings vary with time but most polls within recent months show disapproval ratings in the range of the high 70's to mid 80% range.

    It is obvious that there is a lot of public dissatisfaction out there.

    Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

    by truong son traveler on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:23:09 PM PDT

  •  69 million people. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Yasuragi

    in a few years
    will be a few years older
    I don't think many of these can run with their gun now.

    Their guns are collectors items.

    The only way they stand a chance is if we went to their house to get their gun. Otherwise they ain't moving from their couch.

    How many showed up for Accidental Army James Yeager.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:50:28 PM PDT

  •  These numbers don't surprise me. We have seen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, Yasuragi

    reflections of these statistics is several recent elections.  We have a solid 30% gun crazed, rabid right wing.  Hopefully one day we will become more civilized, like say New Zealand where the ultra right wins a paltry 3% of the vote.

  •  How many here have seen the tv show Jericho? (0+ / 0-)

    No, I am not suggesting that a corporation is going to simultaneously nuke all the major cities with the intent of establishing a Fascist state.  What I am saying is that the nation is a lot more vulnerable than many realize and that it wouldn't take something as grandiose as a revolt in the way many of the comments hypothesize and subsequently dismiss.  

    We've said several times that there is a very real urban/rural split in this nation.  Consider the urban environments, especially the major cities, which all have a population density that is unsustainable without a constant influx of food and other supplies from outside.  If this supply chain were sufficiently disrupted across the country how long do you think it would be before chaos ensued?  It is said that most urban families have enough food on hand for about 3 days and probably no water storage.  

    A disruption of the system, for example, hackers bringing down the food stamps system, upon which millions rely would be a way to create an immediate panic resulting in the local stores being depleted immediately.  If supplies could not be restored, within a few days, gangs and militias would form and along with them would come violence.  They would be engaged by the police, which would likely escalate the violence into riots which would intensify as food reserves run out.  The forces of law would be quickly overwhelmed.  Call in the national guard you say?  Remember, were not talking about an isolated, localized event, but having this play out across the nation all at once.  Even the military wouldn't be able to contain the situation.  

    The revolution would be upon us.

    •  Is that what happened in jericho? (0+ / 0-)

      I only caught some of that show.

      Folks who were in manhattan at 9/11 remember the closing off of the island to traffic - thus stopping the inflow of groceries. Google defied me from pulling up the history, but I think they were isolated for two whole days during which time stores went empty and it was either open the island to let the food surge in or prepare for news broadcasts of people in manhattan beginning to starve.

      There was the historical land-grant of 40 acres and a mule after the civil war that was never completely implemented. 40 acres is about enough for a small family to sustain itself.

      I'm on the edge of the northeast megalopolis. 17% of the population piled up on 2% of the land. a big enough disruption would have that 50ish million people leaving the crowds looking for food.

      Doesn't even need to be hackers or such. During the Sandy aftermath, when there were like 20 gas stations open in the entire state of new jersey, I saw plenty of folks from out of state come my way for fuel for cars and generators. And the power companies are STILL clearing trees from power lines in PA.

    •  I didn't see this until it was linked (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, Glen The Plumber

      to your comment about marauding lunatics carrying toy water guns full of bleach or HIV-infected water or something equally sinister and ridiculous.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      So you're saying that the people who get "food stamps" (I assume you're talking about SNAP) would instantly join or form gangs who would then loot and pillage the homes of everyone else. Gee. It's been my experience that most of the people on SNAP are good, decent, non-violent people who wouldn't instantly devolve into a group of LaPierre-ite economic zombie marauders. Most of them would find other methods of survival before instantly going Mad Max on the world.

  •  Sorry folks, but the government has more and (0+ / 0-)

    bigger guns, and if you think that the owners of this country (the corportations) will allow any disruption in the flow of money, you need to learn a thing or two.

    Look at our history. I'll bet more than 29% of the the whiskey rebellion area of the country thought that armed insurrection against taxes would be tolerated for the sake of "freedom", and guess what?  Washington and Hamilton sent the troops in to end this rebellion on the spot because they needed the tax revenues to pay off war debts.  So the big founding heroes of the christian right would have told today's "patriots" to bug off.

    •  I encourage readers (0+ / 0-)

      who believe the more and bigger guns argument to read a bit on insurgency issues.    Dronifying wedding parties may give neat pictures of explosions, but it is an al qaida recruiting tool, and justly so.  

      For starters, "Fiasco" on our invasion and occupation of Iraq, comes to mind as a good source.  The English language al quaida magazine, despite its "workers and peasants of Brooklyn" errors, is also I am told clarificatory, and may also give you a few unpleasant thoughts.

      That is ignoring the not-minor detail that under the conditions that many of these people are worried about
           gun confiscation
           Hissoner the mayor of New York replaces stop and frisk with stop and beat into the ground
           someone succeeds at banning abortions in a state
           you did realize that this group is not exactly homogenous, didn't you

      you might want to consider that the political reliability of the military to the opponents of some of the above may be a bit limited.

      Actual features of American unpleasantness do not include American Civil War tactics, because neither side is geographically homogenous, at least until ethnic cleansing of opposing political parties is well under way.
      Remember, ethnic cleansing is in fact how we quieted down Baghdad. Read Juan Cole regularly to see this.

      Modern insurgencies are much more unpleasant than secession.  

      We really do not want to go there.  

      We can have change for the better.

      by phillies on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:13:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    Wonder where the mindset goes when people drum into you over and over that leaders from both parties are corrupt, bought and paid for, sellouts, traitors to their party, that the system is so broken that votes should be withheld in protest.  Seems to me that this sense of hopelessness then creeps in and the only solution left is some revolutionary action.  

    I'm so glad that here on DKos we never have that kind of talk about our own leaders, that we always abstain from nasty labeling of our own party heads when they differ from our views on single issues, that we encourage people to become engaged in increasing liberal voter turnout by having reasoned debate that highlights not only perceived failures but also the wonderful successes and the consequences of empowering the other side.  

    Oh, wait.....

  •  The question is how many of them are going (0+ / 0-)

    to fight in that armed rebellion.  There are no arm chair warriors in a revolution.  An armed rebellion on US soil can't be phoned in.

Click here for the mobile view of the site