29 percent of voters think 'armed revolution' might be needed.

[RickN]

Nice thought, but the reality is that that might not happen?
When Stationed in Korea, in the 70's, there were race riots going on in the US.
Those of the same ethethinticy, decided to support their brothers by not going to work.

MP's with tear gas convinced them to leave the barrakcs, and get medical care.

Unfortunatly, the Military is not so cut and dry now.

That is true but if things ever did get that bad, I don't picture a lot of our military being willing to fire on family, friends or neighbors. Some will just follow orders, some will fight if they are attacked, some will say screw it and go home, and others would side with the people. No way if it ever gets that bad will there be a real winner, no matter what happens.

 

[DFarcher]

That is true but if things ever did get that bad, I don't picture a lot of our military being willing to fire on family, friends or neighbors. Some will just follow orders, some will fight if they are attacked, some will say screw it and go home, and others would side with the people. No way if it ever gets that bad will there be a real winner, no matter what happens.

Individules can/will make mistakes. But US Military leaders understand their role, in the vast majority of cases if unlawful orders are given they will be ignored.

 

[dutchwrangler]

"The Land That Would Be"

http://rense.com/general95/landwould.html

 

[ignerntbend]

You're nuttiern squirrel shi+ ,Dutch. I think that's what we all admire about you.

 

[Hobbes]

No one has told me yet why the poll in the OP is more believable than the poll that says 90% of Americans agree with Universal Background Checks.

 

[TedKennedy]

No one has told me yet why the poll in the OP is more believable than the poll that says 90% of Americans agree with Universal Background Checks.

I'm with ya. I'd find it hard to believe that 29% of people in this country knew we STARTED from an armed revolution. Condensed to only gun owners the number may be higher. Now subtract from that gun owners that can actually make hits without a bench and a sandbag and the number gets drastically smaller. Subtract from THAT group the shooters that are physically fit enough to haul their weapon of choice, plus gear and ammo any significant distance, and the number is pretty low.

We're Americans - ignorant of our heritage, ignorant of our Founders' principles, lazy, and fat. (and I'm speaking of us in the gun community)

 

[toehanus]

No one has told me yet why the poll in the OP is more believable than the poll that says 90% of Americans agree with Universal Background Checks.

Ok. I'm going from memory on this one. The 90% poll lumped together two categories. One was something like "you are ok with current gun laws" and the other "you support new gun laws". It seems like they were roughly the same percentages and they added up to something like 85%

First, they rounded up get the 90% and secondly they used two categories to give the impression that people were in favor of new gun laws.

It also depends on their sampling methodology. I haven't read either polls method because I don't really care. Rights are not subject to the whims of the dumb masses.

A large part of statistics deals with clearly defining what you are talking about. Case in point: several years ago I read an article about "children" who were the victims of gun violence. I happened know the statistics of deaths where a firearm was used of the top of my head. The numbers reported were way higher than what I knew. So I did some investigating. The problem was they author of the article used a different definition of children than I did. For me a child is in the age range 0-12, 13-17 is a teenager and 18 and above is an adult. Well the author defined a "child" as someone whose age was from 0-24 years old. Now there will be a lot of different definitions of a child but I doubt many people would include 24 year olds in that category. This was done to inflate the numbers because children ages 0-12 are killed very infrequently by a person using a firearm.

Now back to the UBC. If you ask a person if they support a UBC many of the dumb masses will say yes simply because they don't have a clue what current law is nor do they know what they mean by a UBC. If you had asked the same people if they supported a redundant law that would cost a lot of money and not accomplish anything, you would probably have gotten a lot different response.

As to the 29% poll. Meh it's pretty easy to talk revolution on paper. I think what people really mean is that they would support other people fighting an armed revolution. I guess it would be revolution food stamps. Somebody else doing the work and you getting the benefit. Also as was already pointed out. It didn't define whose revolution it would be. Would it be conservatives fighting for freedom or communists fighting for power. That would be a much more question to answer.

Ok been serious enough for now. Must end with a poop joke.

Why is poop tapered on the end? So your butthole won't slam shut.

@toehanus

 

[toehanus]

Holy crap I just wrote a long post. I hate long posts. Now I will be self loathing day

@toehanus

 

[Hobbes]

Holy crap I just wrote a long post. I hate long posts. Now I will be self loathing day

@toehanus

And the day has only started too.

 

[toehanus]

And the day has only started too.

Let me guess. Encouragement is your spiritual gift.

Ha!

@toehanus