Do the yahoos who dream of armed rebellion realize they might well end up dead or in prison?
Upon further reflection, I have more thoughts to share regarding a recent poll (HERE) showing that nearly one in three American voters think armed rebellion might be necessary within the next few years to protect our liberties.
I find that survey more disturbing the more I dig into the numbers and compare them with other polls. Take, for example, the fact that these weird fantasies of armed rebellion are far more common among Republicans (44 percent) than among Democrats (18 percent) or independents (27 percent).
That means the Republican Party has more of these crazies than it has people who believe in evolution or people who believe in anthropogenic global warming. This is a party in which one-third of its adherents believe there’s something fishy about the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, something cooked up to promote a political agenda.
What’s even more disturbing about the poll on armed rebellion is the likelihood that people who would most relish such action think they might have a chance of prevailing. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy had thoughts like that. He figured his attack on a federal building would trigger a general uprising (see HERE). He vastly overestimated the number of right-wing wackos in this country actually willing to take up arms against their government.
Similar overestimations are commonplace today, I suspect. Lots of militia wackos (see photo above) seem not to realize that most rebellion fantasists will lose their bravado once the proverbial crap hits the fan. Most of them suddenly will come to the realization that prospects of death or imprisonment aren’t too appealing.
UPDATE: Ed Kilgore has some PERTINENT THOUGHTS on this matter:
We need to get right in the faces of people blandly asserting a “right to revolution” and make sure they explicitly acknowledge that “armed revolution” is not some sort of Independence Day parade, but the very tangible enterprise of taking weapons and spilling the blood and taking the lives of police officers and members of the United States Armed Forces. Even if they continue to maintain that “right” as a remote, 1% contingency if America becomes a very different place, perhaps they’ll be less likely to talk as though it’s a lively proposition that might be triggered by next week’s health care regulations or next year’s adverse election results.
But our main target ought to be the politicians and pundits and bloggers that walk the revolutionary rhetorical road because it’s “entertaining” or it makes them feel all macho (like Grover Norquist swaggering around Washington with a “I’d rather be killing commies” button after one of his trips to Angola in the 1980s), or it’s just useful to have an audience or a political base mobilized to a state of near-violence by images of fire and smoke and iron and blood.
As I’ve observed on many occasions, you can only imagine how these self-appointed guardians of liberty would feel if casual talk of “armed revolution” became widespread on the left or among those people. There should not, cannot, be a double standard on this issue.