Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary
So that’s where all the ammo has gone. The 29% are getting ready to protect our liberties.
Rebellion is too strong a word, but I could see armed civil disobedience, as in “no, I"m not turning in my ‘assault weapon’, and I’m not going to passively let you haul me away to a cage; your move”. Repeated a few thousand times across the country.
The ‘Defense of Liberty’ meme, in all of its variations, remains as idiotic as it was when given its own thread. Talk about single issue fanaticism!
Does it seem rational for a citizen, presumably a productive member of society with a job, a spouse, a house, a mortgage, a car, 2.3 kids, and an affinity for the outdoors to give up all the benefits of civilized society and become not just a felon but a violent felon, over the loss of his/her favorite rifle? People are really going to take to the hills and live in a hole in the ground, or take pot shots at law enforcement officers trying to collect banned weapons, or otherwise violently resist? C’mon. Or does “armed civil disobedience” have another meaning?
And the avowal to violently resist such a law (regulation, whatever) is as irrational as the underlying belief that an actual confiscatory law could be passed in the United States in the 21st century. Yes there are people who would like to see it. I am not one of them, but I recognize that they exist. Remember though, we’re talking about an action by a government entity, subject to all the usual formalities required to effect such a change as banning, or requiring the surrender, of some class or description of weapon. By definition, this means the measure would need wide popular support, at least a plurality if not a majority. It would require action by a legislative body, signature by an executive, and survival of multiple court challenges. Given the existence of the 2nd Amendment, it is likely that even this would not be enough, but a super majority to overturn or negate the 2nd. Really, all silly ‘slippery slope’ assertions to the contrary, it just ain’t gonna happen. A belief that this is possible, even likely, is irrational.
Passive-aggressive revolution. You know, that’s so crazy it just might work!
It’s fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hatred. That leads to the dark side. AKA the Republicans.
I think for most situations I’d agree with you. But this time maybe not so much.
I don’t think they’re really afraid someone will take their special guns away. To harbor that fear would require a degree of irrationality that – I hope – even most conservatives do not share. I think fear is operative in relation to all the other changes they see around them. There’s a black man in the White House; Hispanics are no longer a trivial minority; the rest of the world doesn’t particularly like, let alone look up to, us; ‘job security’ is an historic concept; etc. The times they are a’changin’, and the progression is logarithmic. Conservatives by nature resist change and what they can’t forestall scares them.
I see the over-the-top reaction to “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties” as mostly puffery and bluster. Like a bully pushed into a corner, the reaction is to threaten violence and predict dire consequences to the supposed instigator. But in this case the instigator is really the wide world around them. So they push back, focusing on issues they can define as discrete and defensible. Safety for them lies in having society step back, halt its inexorable progression – or at the very least, halt advancement toward this particular item. And they’re winning!! They just don’t – can’t, perhaps – recognize that their success is due, not to their bluster and threats, but to the fact that the end they so fear – confiscation of certain or all guns – isn’t really desired or advocated by the majority of American society after all.
If there was some magical POOF! and confiscation of “assault weapons” somehow became the law of the land, would these worthies actually take up “2nd Amendment solutions”? A few, perhaps, are indeed that crazy. But I strongly doubt that most would do more than piss, moan, and bitch. They might keep their preciouses hidden someplace and take their chances on being discovered, but I don’t really see many sacrificing themselves on this particular hill.
If the local National Guard unit is tasked for Operation Black Helicopter and you open fire on your cousin, could make for a very awkward Thanksgiving.
Did he just go on record as blaming his son for murdering his little sister? I guess that would be the responsible thing to do… good luck getting a decent tie for Father’s Day, though.
So do you anticipate forcible gun confiscation within the next few years? If that is what 44% of Republicans meant by armed rebellion, do you agree with them?
And, “armed civil disobedience”? Is that like “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence”? Would Gandhi recognize “armed civil disobedience”?
So you’ve been to my uncle’s house for the holidays, yes? His Napalmed Turkey is divine!
It means that sometimes you can win a standoff better than you could win a fight. Gun owners want to be left alone, so the status quo is on their side. The gun owners won’t be the first to shoot, because it will give the redshirts sent out to do the confiscating a chance to really, really decide if they’re being payed enough to open that can of worms.
You are entirely delusional if you think that’s true.
It’s just another chapter in the All Gun Owners Are Paragons of Virtue and Level-Headeness and Would Never Even Think of Doing Something Stupid With Their Guns.
That was armed civil disobedience explained, whether you credit it is up to you.
OK, how does this go down: Gun stroker stands on his porch with a scary black gun, surrounded by ten SWAT team members with scary black guns. SWAT commander (without a scary black gun) walks up to gun stroker, and tries to grab his gun with his hands.
Then what?
Why, then the Gun Owner Who Is A Paragon of Virtue and Level-Headedness and Would Never Even Think of Doing Something Stupid With His Gun will do something not at all stupid with his gun. Of course. This will go well, I am quite sure. Move along, nothing to see here!
Otherwise <hijack> This is your rifle, this is your gun. This one’s for shooting and this one’s for…" </hijack>
Does the SWAT commander really think that’s a good idea?
Under the gun grabber law scenario, it is his job to grab guns. If he doesn’t grab guns, he is derelict in his duty. Good idea doesn’t enter into it; the law got 60 votes in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the President signed it. It is the law.
Now, since we are speculating about hypotheticals, if you believe the gun grabber law is likely to happen in the next few years, the gun grabbing SWAT commander is at least as likely.
So who shoots first? Or does gun stroker lose his gun?
The only thing that stops a bad boy with a gun is a good boy with a gun.
Mahatma Gundhi. Leading proponent of armed civil disobedience and a man of the first caliber.
I remember him:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you shoot them.”