65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Poll

65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Poll

This is a discussion on 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Poll within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Interesting, considering even the majority of non-gun households still agreed (57%). 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports...

Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By OldVet
  • 1 Post By oakchas
  • 1 Post By TX expat
  • 1 Post By OldVet
  • 2 Post By Pistology

Thread: 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Poll

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,098

    65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Poll

    Interesting, considering even the majority of non-gun households still agreed (57%).

    65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,173
    That's in line with my Canuckistan vibe. We're taught that the intent of the 2A was to provide protection against government tyranny. I'd answer the poll question the same way. Now, I don't think that gun rights protect freedoms in any practical sense any longer. Anyone using their gun against a government these days would be immediately painted as a loony and completely disowned. Even a group of people who were willing to use their guns to prevent the enactment of legislation would be seen as nuts. That said, I'd agree that the intent of the 2A is clear, but until Hawaii or Missouri gets nuclear ICBMs, I don't think they'll much influence Washington policy with regards the marginal tax rates, or whatever.
    The only acceptable long-term outcome is to find a cure. It's an actual solution, requiring forward-thinking efforts.

    Until then, we're just arguing about who's pushing who.


  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,666
    I just see it as my right, for whatever reason.
    Jetfuelrm likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,568

    Re: 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Poll

    Thanks for that link... Good results... And, some good results for the NRA, too.

    How are we going to defend against tyranny with just squirt guns, post AWB?
    TX expat likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,098
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Thanks for that link... Good results... And, some good results for the NRA, too.

    How are we going to defend against tyranny with just squirt guns, post AWB?
    If tyranny comes in the form of small army men made from sugar cubes, squirt guns might be enough!
    oakchas likes this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,666
    Fill them with Holy Water just in case.
    oakchas likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Fill them with Holy Water just in case.
    Bring stakes also.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    609
    That's good news. I must admit I am surprised that the total who understand the purpose of the 2A is that high. I also noted that the question of an AWB/>10 round mag limit was not asked. Presumably, if you think the 2A is intended to stop tyrants, you would think that neither of those bans is proper and lately I have not seen any polls that showed 65% of the public against the bans

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    That's in line with my Canuckistan vibe. We're taught that the intent of the 2A was to provide protection against government tyranny. I'd answer the poll question the same way. Now, I don't think that gun rights protect freedoms in any practical sense any longer. Anyone using their gun against a government these days would be immediately painted as a loony and completely disowned. Even a group of people who were willing to use their guns to prevent the enactment of legislation would be seen as nuts. That said, I'd agree that the intent of the 2A is clear, but until Hawaii or Missouri gets nuclear ICBMs, I don't think they'll much influence Washington policy with regards the marginal tax rates, or whatever.
    Well, if all the manufacturers leave anti states and go to pro states and those states enact laws that would prevent the feds from tampering with gun rights in their state and it happened in more than one state...maybe some leverage.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,577
    Perhaps the sleeping masses are finally stirring from their slumber. About darn time they wake up and understand what is about to happen in this country.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    11,271
    Quote Originally Posted by ctr View Post
    Perhaps the sleeping masses are finally stirring from their slumber. About darn time they wake up and understand what is about to happen in this country.
    I hope there are enough left to turn this ship around, once they get woke up.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,182
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    That's in line with my Canuckistan vibe. We're taught that the intent of the 2A was to provide protection against government tyranny. I'd answer the poll question the same way. Now, I don't think that gun rights protect freedoms in any practical sense any longer. Anyone using their gun against a government these days would be immediately painted as a loony and completely disowned. Even a group of people who were willing to use their guns to prevent the enactment of legislation would be seen as nuts. That said, I'd agree that the intent of the 2A is clear, but until Hawaii or Missouri gets nuclear ICBMs, I don't think they'll much influence Washington policy with regards the marginal tax rates, or whatever.
    Well, look at it from the point of view that if this current regime succeeds in infringing on 2A, in it's already watered-down form.
    It does not bode well for countries like yours that respect some gun rights. It would embolden government for more and would, in turn, embolden politicians' attitudes as being superior to the weakly armed or prohibited citizens, shadows of their former self-reliant selves and unable to speak on an equal level with government. It puts gun rights on the defensive - even more than now.
    Perception of potency really is a factor in the political discourse between politicians and citizens. Hitting the regime in its purse is how the War for Independence started.
    Those are encouraging numbers, like a letter from home. Guns aren't "practical", in the sense of direct application of firepower to government representatives. But the question is not of "guns" but "gun rights". And those are very effective in moderating tyranny. Take if from a Californian.
    SigPapa226 and CanuckQue like this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #13
    Member Array paching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kissimmee, Florida
    Posts
    407
    I just fell safer armed, i don't like people forcing their opinion on me because I'm ALWAYS right.
    Why?? Because at the last second, the Police are minutes away.

  14. #14
    Member Array Flashburns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    35
    An unarmed citizen is an easy target for criminals. See Australia
    Australia Bans Guns, Crime Rate Increases | Gun Control Fail - YouTube

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Well, look at it from the point of view that if this current regime succeeds in infringing on 2A, in it's already watered-down form.
    It does not bode well for countries like yours that respect some gun rights. It would embolden government for more and would, in turn, embolden politicians' attitudes as being superior to the weakly armed or prohibited citizens, shadows of their former self-reliant selves and unable to speak on an equal level with government. It puts gun rights on the defensive - even more than now.
    Perception of potency really is a factor in the political discourse between politicians and citizens. Hitting the regime in its purse is how the War for Independence started.
    Those are encouraging numbers, like a letter from home. Guns aren't "practical", in the sense of direct application of firepower to government representatives. But the question is not of "guns" but "gun rights". And those are very effective in moderating tyranny. Take if from a Californian.
    Oh I totally agree. Defending gun rights is a good idea, because it's defending rights.
    The only acceptable long-term outcome is to find a cure. It's an actual solution, requiring forward-thinking efforts.

    Until then, we're just arguing about who's pushing who.


Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gun image avatar

,

poll protection against government

,

rasmussen: 65% say gun rights stop tyranny

,

why guns are a protection against political tyranny

Click on a term to search for related topics.