Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Waiting For The Armed Revolution

Last week, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind research center conducted a poll concerning gun control. The results are disturbing. 

"Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents."  

Here's the question from the survey. It appears to be the first question asked. I don't know what the introductory script contained so I have no idea if the caller was told this was about or in response to gun control.  

In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties. 
Neither agree nor disagree 

Regardless, that so many people think an armed revolution might be necessary is frightening. More so since they're probably the ones with the guns because they think they'll need them for the revolution. 
Along with party affiliation, I notice there is also a correlation with education level. Just saying. 


toby said...

The education level would also correlate with the unemployment rate. Please note that the majority of revolutions are fought by those with nothing to lose. (not middle age folks with a paid off house and a retirement plan)

Anonymous said...

It's not just guns




Fitspokanistan said...

I love the new focus on cycling in this blog.

Revolution is a synonym for cycling, right?

Armed revolution refers to hand cycles, then.

Great upper body workout. Murrika is going to buff out.

Vexan said...

Revolution would be suicide.

Then again, so is the status quo.

tony said...

Young men not being added to the workforce.

Politically Quasi-Incorrect said...

When male hires outnumber female, that's a clear sign of discrimination. When female hires vastly outnumber male, that's a "victory."

It's interesting the "mancession" is being replaced by "womancovery."

What if women were committing suicide in such vast numbers? Would that finally constitute a public health epidemic?

Anonymous said...

"revolutions are fought by those with nothing to lose."

With the notable exception of the US revolution, perhaps.

Revolution may be unlikely, but an increased gender gap in 2016 may be more likely. If a candidate like Rand Paul won as aresult, that would seem as revolutionary as the (failed) change Obama represented in 2008.

Democrats may want to be less smug about Hillary's presumed coronation. She may again be the right candidate at the wrong time. The gender may prove double-edged.