Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion May be Necessary

  • 156 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php

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 of Democrats said an armed revolt might be necessary, as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

The poll also found that 25 percent of voters believe the American public is being lied to about the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by people seeking to promote a political agenda

Sahil Kapur

Personally, I think it's pretty damn stupid that some people think we will need to fight our own government in the next few years. I also think it's stupid that people are buying into the Sandy Hook conspiracies.

But I do think they worded the question a little to vaguely, I think if they would have changed "might be necesarry" to "will be necessary" they would have had a significantly less amount of people agreeing with the statement

What do you guys think? Will an armed revolution be needed? Was Sandy Hook staged?

#2 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149614 posts) -

I suppose the colonies thought as you did as well at one point....anyway....we really aren't at that kind of need at this moment. And no Sandy Hook wasn't staged.

#3 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
No one thought a few rebels could take out Gadaffi; could happen.
#4 Posted by Jimn_tonic (819 posts) -
When Obama sheds his skin and reveals his reptilian scales, me and mah ar-15 will be waiting, I tell ya what.
#5 Posted by ferrari2001 (16680 posts) -
In the American revolution less then that wanted an armed rebellion so I suppose it could be technically possible.
#6 Posted by comp_atkins (31109 posts) -

no better way to get others to support your cause than by taking up arms and killing a bunch of people....

#7 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?
#8 Posted by eo_the_shaman (1800 posts) -

its united states americans right to raise arms against the government, my personal oppinon is people need to grow some balls and say no

#9 Posted by Blueresident87 (5195 posts) -

I guarantee you of that 29% there are very few people who would truly be ready to carry that out.

#10 Posted by ferrari2001 (16680 posts) -
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?

Likely a group of civilians attacking key government buildings, both in Washington and in State capitols. The military would of course be called in to stop the situation. Hopefully most members of the military would refuse to fire on civilians essentially ending the rebellion and forming a new government. As to who would head all of this, that if frankly unknown. Either that or a large bloody conflict takes place and the party that rises from the ashes takes power.
#11 Posted by JML897 (33111 posts) -
I wonder what percentage of that 29% can accurately name a single "liberty" the government is taking away from them
#12 Posted by themajormayor (25649 posts) -
No one thought a few rebels could take out Gadaffi; could happen. Fightingfan
lol wat
#13 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

I wonder what percentage of that 29% can accurately name a single "liberty" the government is taking away from themJML897

29%

#14 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23398 posts) -

good luck with that.

th?id=H.4518654500995127&pid=15.1

th?id=H.4699296503827247&pid=15.1

th?id=H.4703509866742890&pid=15.1

if you think for a second the noobs in the national guard would not shoot you down like a dog in the street there is a memorial  at  kent state you may want to see.

th?id=H.4776614508825244&pid=15.1

#15 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?Fightingfan

I guess it would be the people vs dictator Obama

#16 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

I don't think anytime soon, but I can see a revolution occurring during my lifetime. 

#17 Posted by Blueresident87 (5195 posts) -

I wonder what percentage of that 29% can accurately name a single "liberty" the government is taking away from themJML897

They likely can't, and even if they could they'd be exercising a liberty by saying so in the first place. I've always found that funny, people bitch and moan and protest about the government in so many ways, but in doing so they are exercising a key liberty that our government awards its people. Amusing.

#18 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferrari2001"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?

Likely a group of civilians attacking key government buildings, both in Washington and in State capitols. The military would of course be called in to stop the situation. Hopefully most members of the military would refuse to fire on civilians essentially ending the rebellion and forming a new government. As to who would head all of this, that if frankly unknown. Either that or a large bloody conflict takes place and the party that rises from the ashes takes power.

That's always been my theory as well. I don't see American soldiers having the ability to shoot down fellow American citizens like the Sharpeville Massacre.
#19 Posted by themajormayor (25649 posts) -

Why don't you guys just start some new parties and vote for them instead?

#20 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (27244 posts) -
I love pillocks who compare the American Revolution ("No taxation without representation!") to a modern government elected by the populace but whom a minority of the people are upset with and think they have a right to usurp the majority's will via armed insurrection. #notunderstandinghowademocracyworksFTW!
#21 Posted by ferrari2001 (16680 posts) -

good luck with that.if you think for a second the noobs in the national guard would not shoot you down like a dog in the street there is a memorial  at  kent state you may want to see.

Riverwolf007
The problem is those soldiers would be asked to kill their family, neighbors and friends. Many of them might think twice before trying to shooting down a bunch of American civilians. Plus how many soldiers would join their family and friends in the fight? I would imagine there would be a split in military forces. It would not be as cut and dry and simply sending in some special forces and tanks to deal with the situation.
#22 Posted by Blueresident87 (5195 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?Bane_09

I guess it would be the people vs dictator Obama

Obama is a democratic President, we elected him. Go spend time in a country with an actual dictator and learn more about what you're saying.

#23 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Why don't you guys just start some new parties and vote for them instead?

themajormayor
You're funny. If you're not a donkey or elephant your vote doesn't matter.
#24 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?Blueresident87

I guess it would be the people vs dictator Obama

Obama is a democratic President, we elected him. Go spend time in a country with an actual dictator and learn more about what you're saying.

The German people elected Hitler

#25 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]How would a modern day revolution go about? Like who would attack who?Blueresident87

I guess it would be the people vs dictator Obama

Obama is a democratic President, we elected him. Go spend time in a country with an actual dictator and learn more about what you're saying.

lolz, I wasn't being serious. Although I'm sure that's how the people in poll think of him

#26 Posted by Blueresident87 (5195 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

I guess it would be the people vs dictator Obama

Fightingfan

Obama is a democratic President, we elected him. Go spend time in a country with an actual dictator and learn more about what you're saying.

The German people elected Hitler

Yep, and if Germany won the war that wouldn't have been a problem.

And comparing Obama to Hitler Really? That's ridiculous...

#27 Posted by Sajo7 (14049 posts) -
In the American revolution less then that wanted an armed rebellion so I suppose it could be technically possible. ferrari2001
Maybe France will comp the bill this time too. :P
#28 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (27244 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

I guess it would be the people vs dictator Obama

Fightingfan

Obama is a democratic President, we elected him. Go spend time in a country with an actual dictator and learn more about what you're saying.

The German people elected Hitler

Revolutionaries put the ayatollah in power in Iran, whats your point?

EDIT or Lenin and the Russian revolution under the guise of more freedom for the people eroded by the government.

#29 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

Obama is a democratic President, we elected him. Go spend time in a country with an actual dictator and learn more about what you're saying.

Blueresident87

The German people elected Hitler

Yep, and if Germany won the war that wouldn't have been a problem.

And comparing Obama to Hitler Really? That's ridiculous...

I'm not comparing it's just you insisted dictators can't be elected, which is not true.
#30 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (27244 posts) -
[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] The German people elected Hitler

Fightingfan

Yep, and if Germany won the war that wouldn't have been a problem.

And comparing Obama to Hitler Really? That's ridiculous...

I'm not comparing it's just you insisted dictators can't be elected, which is not true.

Where did he say that? :?
#31 Posted by JML897 (33111 posts) -
This thread got Godwinned pretty quickly
#32 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23398 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

good luck with that.if you think for a second the noobs in the national guard would not shoot you down like a dog in the street there is a memorial  at  kent state you may want to see.

 

ferrari2001

The problem is those soldiers would be asked to kill their family, neighbors and friends. Many of them might think twice before trying to shooting down a bunch of American civilians. Plus how many soldiers would join their family and friends in the fight? I would imagine there would be a split in military forces. It would not be as cut and dry and simply sending in some special forces and tanks to deal with the situation.

people do what you tell them to do.

how many experements on control and human nature do you need to see because there are dozens out there.

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:

  • The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
  • The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
  • The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
  • Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent
  • expert.
  • The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

Forty years ago a group of students hoping to make a bit of holiday money turned up at a basement in Stanford University, California, for what was to become one of the most notorious experiments in the study of human psychology.

The idea was simple - take a group of volunteers, tell half of them they are prisoners, the other half prison wardens, place them in a makeshift jail and watch what happens.

The Stanford prison experiment was supposed to last two weeks but was ended abruptly just six days later, after a string of mental breakdowns, an outbreak of sadism and a hunger strike.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14564182

the entire world is 5 days away from it being a global  remake of the lord of the flies and nobody realizes it.

pretty funny stuff.

#33 Posted by mrbojangles25 (31985 posts) -

I am 99% confident that the military, most of the military at least, has the backs of the civilians.  I have never met a vet that was not a libertarian and didnt end up hating the government lol.

Pretty sure that if armed rebellion did become necessary, the armed forces would be like "Its cool, bro, we got this" for us and would park a few tanks on the right lawns and ring the right doorbells and politely demand change

#34 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
I do not know if Sandy Hook was staged. It is suspicious that there were so many mass shootings in the months leading up to Obama's decision to try to ban guns, but I do not have enough information to know. Regardless of whether we are being lied to about Sandy Hook, it is obvious that the MSM and anti-constitutionalist politicians like Obama are exploiting it to promote gun restrictions. What I do know is that if the government ever tries to ban guns entirely then there will be an armed rebellion or it will mean the death of every principle that this nation was founded on. When the government says that you have no right to defend yourself from it then your only options are to fight it or to live as a slave.
#35 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23398 posts) -

I do not know if Sandy Hook was staged. It is suspicious that there were so many mass shootings in the months leading up to Obama's decision to try to ban guns, but I do not have enough information to know. Regardless of whether we are being lied to about Sandy Hook, it is obvious that the MSM and anti-constitutionalist politicians like Obama are exploiting it to promote gun restrictions. What I do know is that if the government ever tries to ban guns entirely then there will be an armed rebellion or it will mean the death of every principle that this nation was founded on. When the government says that you have no right to defend yourself from it then your only options are to fight it or to live as a slave.Laihendi
shut up meg.

#36 Posted by Beagle050 (715 posts) -
It will forever be known as 'The Cheeto Dust Rebellion," fought by a bunch of fat losers who made it up 5 of their basement stairs and then called it quits.
#37 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

Yep, and if Germany won the war that wouldn't have been a problem.

And comparing Obama to Hitler Really? That's ridiculous...

blue_hazy_basic

I'm not comparing it's just you insisted dictators can't be elected, which is not true.

Where did he say that? :?

Buy saying Democratic President =/= Dictator.

He said "Obama is a democratic President, we elected him" being elected doesn't negate you from being a dictator.

You can have a totalitarian dictator who was elected democratically.

#38 Posted by CJL13 (19137 posts) -

More and more conspiracy theorists, more and more stupidity.

#39 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
Mah politics team didn't win, time to kill people.
#40 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

I do not know if Sandy Hook was staged. It is suspicious that there were so many mass shootings in the months leading up to Obama's decision to try to ban guns, but I do not have enough information to know. Regardless of whether we are being lied to about Sandy Hook, it is obvious that the MSM and anti-constitutionalist politicians like Obama are exploiting it to promote gun restrictions. What I do know is that if the government ever tries to ban guns entirely then there will be an armed rebellion or it will mean the death of every principle that this nation was founded on. When the government says that you have no right to defend yourself from it then your only options are to fight it or to live as a slave.Laihendi

Politicians using idsaster for political gain?

tumblr_inline_mllwriBxqC1qz4rgp.gif

#41 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
When people say "sandy hook was staged", what does that mean? People are lying, and their kids never really died because they never existed?
#42 Posted by Treflis (11390 posts) -
It's not really a secret that various major companies can easily wave some money in some senators faces to make they do what they want, but I doubt there'll be a armed revolution. And Sandy Hooks wasn't staged, I can't understand where that theory came from
#43 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
When people say "sandy hook was staged", what does that mean? People are lying, and their kids never really died because they never existed? Fightingfan
I think what people generally mean is that the government set it up to create a huge media event and rally public support for new gun restrictions.
#44 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]When people say "sandy hook was staged", what does that mean? People are lying, and their kids never really died because they never existed? Laihendi
I think what people generally mean is that the government set it up to create a huge media event and rally public support for new gun restrictions.

The government perpetrating the muder of dozens children for political gain? Even the looniest of citizens can't believe that.

#45 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]When people say "sandy hook was staged", what does that mean? People are lying, and their kids never really died because they never existed? jimkabrhel

I think what people generally mean is that the government set it up to create a huge media event and rally public support for new gun restrictions.

The government perpetrating the muder of dozens children for political gain? Even the looniest of citizens can't believe that.

Operation Northwoods.
#46 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23398 posts) -

It's not really a secret that various major companies can easily wave some money in some senators faces to make they do what they want, but I doubt there'll be a armed revolution. And Sandy Hooks wasn't staged, I can't understand where that theory came fromTreflis
hmmm. i wonder...

th?id=H.4626698677256257&pid=15.1

#47 Posted by lostrib (31959 posts) -

Alright, more useless polls

#48 Posted by ShuLordLiuPei (9506 posts) -

I do not know if Sandy Hook was staged. It is suspicious that there were so many mass shootings in the months leading up to Obama's decision to try to ban guns, but I do not have enough information to know. Regardless of whether we are being lied to about Sandy Hook, it is obvious that the MSM and anti-constitutionalist politicians like Obama are exploiting it to promote gun restrictions. What I do know is that if the government ever tries to ban guns entirely then there will be an armed rebellion or it will mean the death of every principle that this nation was founded on. When the government says that you have no right to defend yourself from it then your only options are to fight it or to live as a slave.Laihendi

Laihendi, saying something reasonable? What has the world come to? 

#49 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]When people say "sandy hook was staged", what does that mean? People are lying, and their kids never really died because they never existed? jimkabrhel

I think what people generally mean is that the government set it up to create a huge media event and rally public support for new gun restrictions.

The government perpetrating the muder of dozens children for political gain? Even the looniest of citizens can't believe that.

There is a lot of evidence to support the idea that the government staged 9-11 which killed thousands (in addition to starting 2 wars). It is at any rate certain that the government is not telling the entire truth about 911, regardless of who was responsible. Also FDR allowed Pearl Harbour to be attacked so he would have enough public support to enter WW2. This kind of stuff is not nearly as far-fetched as you seem to think.
#50 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I think what people generally mean is that the government set it up to create a huge media event and rally public support for new gun restrictions.Laihendi

The government perpetrating the muder of dozens children for political gain? Even the looniest of citizens can't believe that.

There is a lot of evidence to support the idea that the government staged 9-11 which killed thousands (in addition to starting 2 wars). It is at any rate certain that the government is not telling the entire truth about 911, regardless of who was responsible. Also FDR allowed Pearl Harbour to be attacked so he would have enough public support to enter WW2. This kind of stuff is not nearly as far-fetched as you seem to think.

What would be the point in staging 9/11? The government could of just blown up an empty military base, which would have no causalities and use that as a way to wage war.