Apologies to readers if in the cut-and-paste, the columns don't quite line up properly. This is the poll question:
Do you think violence against the current American government is justified or not?
There are other categories in the poll; this is an excerpt only - follow the link above by clicking on the question for the full poll.Justified Not justified Not sure
Democrat 5 84 12
Republican 6 80 14
Independent/Other 10 82 8
Other 14 76 11
Tea Party 13 75 12
A CBS News Poll, released on January 11, 2011 asked the same question. According to the CBS report on this poll,
"The poll also shows that while three in four Americans say violence against the government is never justified, 16 percent say it can be justified -- the same percentage that said as much in April. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said such violence can be justified, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and independents."I don't know which distresses me more; that 28% of Republicans feel that violence can be justified against the current United States Government, or that 11% of Democrats and Independents think so.
From the CBS poll:
"Whether these politics played a roll in these shootings or not, few Americans think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government. Three in four think it is never justified, similar to the percentage that said so last April."Is Violent Action Against the Government Ever Justified? Now 4/20/'10
Justified 16% 16%
Not Justified 76% 79%
For these people responding to the poll to seriously consider violence against the legitimate Government of the United States........is just NUTS. And these people can legally, presumably, own any number of guns, ammunition, and 30+ capacity clips. How blase should we be, about the 2nd Amendment legal gun carrying person next to us? Next to us at a Starbucks or Carribou Coffee as we plink away on a computer, or standing in a crowd at a political rally - gun proponents want us to feel relaxed and to trust their judgement. This...........puts a difficult perspective on doing that. Because, while Jared Loughner will presumably be adjudged mentally ill, others who have been arrested for threatening violence against political figures are not mentally ill, like the one who threatened Congressman McDermott, or the one who threatened Senator Bennett. THAT puts the function of violent, inflammatory rhetoric in a very different light.
Mr. Loughner is innocent until found guilty by a judge, (or jury) beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof for determining him not guilty by reason of mental defect (insanity defense) is similar. It is UTTERLY IRRESPONSIBLE to presume what the outcome of the trial will be, especially since the evidence has not been wholly presented to the finders of fact and/or made public.
ReplyDeleteI commend you for giving the sources of the allegations. However, I wonder at the disparity of the poll numbers. You seem to like the numbers from CBS News better.. perhaps because of your anti-gun agenda?
While polling is not by any means a scientific experiment, when you have a two polls which have essentially the same question asked, and get a greatly dissimilar answer to a question, i.e. in the Daily Kos poll, only 6 percent of Republicans approved of violence against the government,and in the CBS News poll, 28 percent did. That tells me that there is something wrong with one of the other polls. I refuse to believe that 28 percent of the republicans believe that. Its clear, however, that this is what you want to believe. Its your right.
ToE wrote:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Loughner is innocent until found guilty by a judge, (or jury) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whoaaaa,ToE! Hold on! Read again, what I wrote here. I did not speculate on whether or not Jared Loughner will be found guilty of a violent crime against Congresswoman Giffords or the other victims, sir.
I wrote what I meant: "Because, while Jared Loughner will presumably be adjudged mentally ill".
After the recent events, I doubt very much that Jared Loughner will ever again LEGALLY AQUIRE A HANDGUN. I'm quite sure he will meet the criteria to be refused a legal gun purchase per the NCIS data base.
ToE then wrote:
"However, I wonder at the disparity of the poll numbers. You seem to like the numbers from CBS News better.. perhaps because of your anti-gun agenda?"
I do not have an anti-gun agenda, my dear friend and colleague. I have owned multiple handguns for some years. I have enjoyed shooting sports over several decades.
I am however, anti-violence against government, for example. I am also against letting criminals, children, and those others who are designated as restricted from gun ownership by current federal law have access to guns.
Aren't you too?
The standard of proof for determining him not guilty by reason of mental defect (insanity defense) is similar. It is UTTERLY IRRESPONSIBLE to presume what the outcome of the trial will be, especially since the evidence has not been wholly presented to the finders of fact and/or made public.
Then ToE wrote:
ReplyDelete"While polling is not by any means a scientific experiment, when you have a two polls which have essentially the same question asked, and get a greatly dissimilar answer to a question, i.e. in the Daily Kos poll, only 6 percent of Republicans approved of violence against the government,and in the CBS News poll, 28 percent did."
Dear ToE, I would strongly encourage you to look at the two polls, and how they differ. I have only posted very small excerpts from both. I would direct you to look at the demographic breakdown of each, and the other questions as well.
If for example, you add together the Republicans, and the Tea Party, above......you get 19% who are favorable to violence against the current government. Another category, one which I did NOT include here from the Daily Kos poll was 'conservative' at 14%.
That added in to the 19% gives a resultof 34%, not so terribly far from the 28%. The CBS poll did not have a similar varied breakdown; they went with a simpler Republican or Democrat.
Why did I not include all of the categories? A practical, if stupid reason, dear ToE. I was too frustrated with the difficulties of trying to get all of the columns to cooperate! So, in disgust, I simply deleted them, and contented myself with providing the various links, and made my point as best I could in good conscience. I find the number of people who express themselves willing to take arms against our lawful government deeply distressing. I blame a prevailing attitude that I have seen too often, that is belligerant, and swaggering, and fetish in nature, rather than appreciating how terrible the reality of violence really is.
You are too hasty, my esteeemed ToE, in your conclusions.
I say Loughner is GUILTY of being a nut in possession of a gun. I don't think we need a judge and jury to determine that, nor do I think we need belabor the definition of "nut."
ReplyDeleteHonesty is all that's required.
About the rheroric, I've been blaming Glenn Beck for a long time on my blog. Is there a direct proveable connection, no. Do I still blame him, and Palin and the rest, yes.
I think you peg it, precisely Mike.
ReplyDeleteThere is a significant difference between simply having a gun, possibly enjoying target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, etc. and having a gun which you make part of the intimidation of political figures or the political opposition.
There is an important difference between the paranoid mentality, or the mentality which makes a gun somethinig that you rely on to make you powerful, and regarding a gun as a weapon which is potentially dangerous, a danger that is taken very seriously and soberly.
I am not uncomfortable around a gun range full of people shooting. But if I am sitting at a table in a social situation, or in a church or a library or my dentist's office, I do not feel a basic civility exists with everyone armed to the teeth. A weapon is to be carried when a weapon is NEEDED or appropriate. I don't feel that need every moment of every day, and I do not agree that it is reasonable. But I especially oppose guns as a threat to our government to intimidate or injure to alter our political process.
The message 'vote the way I want or I and my friends will come back and shoot you' is not freedom, it is thuggery.
ReplyDeleteWhile the days of an armed citizenry being able to take on a modern army, successfully have largely gone by the wayside, it was precisely that thought that the framers of the 2nd amendment in mind. After all, one of the aims of the British was to disarm the colonists, to prevent just the uprising that occurred, (and notice how successful they were in that... or not). While the US Constitution which was created did and does not openly allow for armed revolution, the fact that the founders specifically left us with a 2nd amendment tells me that the idea wasn't completely out there.
ReplyDeleteIts possible that Mr. Loughner will attempt an insanity defense. Insanity defenses are actually quite rare, because they are fraught with peril. Moreover, since they so rarely work, if they fail, the accused has no leg to fall back on: one of the basic premises of the insanity defense is to admit that the defendant did in fact commit the act of which they are accused. The more interesting question will be whether he is found competent to stand trial in the first place. If he is truly mentally ill, then he may not be able to understand the proceedings against him or assist in his defense.
I examined both polls. I examined the questions asked and the demographics. I'm perfectly capable of interpreting political polling. The question about violence against the government was virtually identical in both polls, but one had an answer over 4 times the other. This was the CBS news poll. I honestly don't know what's wrong with the poll, but when I see data like that which is inconsistent, I believe it difficult to believe, and I don't. I quite frankly do not believe that 28% of Republicans think armed violence against the government is permissible.
"Because, while Jared Loughner will presumably be adjudged mentally ill, others who have been arrested for threatening violence against political figures are not mentally ill,"
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the basis for determining someone is not mentally competent to safely own a gun is different than the threshold of proof and argument required in Loughner's criminal defense.
Let me repeat - I'm not making any statement about Loughner's criminal troubles here. I am not addressing his upcoming trial, if any.
I'm making the point that while some people making a threat against people elected to office are crazy, or likely in the context of gun ownership to be found crazy by a judge OR commission, others who feel justified in making a threat are perfectly sane - by either set of standards, civil and/or criminal. I'm referring to the lower civil standard for crazy. (sigh)
The government in question is not any hypothetical government where violence is considered justified - it is THIS government. Given the volume of disinformation and misinformation, that is truly frightening. Because violence is NOT reasonably justified.
If you take the two polls, and add together the numbers of the groups which are usually considered to be parts of the political right, and compare them to the poll which lumps everyone on the right together as 'Republican' (improperly ignoring the factional nuances) the numbers are similar and make sense. If you look at the beliefs on the right reflected in the University of Maryland study, the numbers make sense in both polls.
But if you are still disastisfied, dear ToE, I can find you more support for this conclusion that people, like Sharron Angle, are advocating the violent overthrow of the duly elected government of the United States.
As an anecdotal support, I would refer you to the interview last night on ABC, with Gabrielle Giffords husband. Just let me know what sort of proof you feel you need.
Here is the New York Times / CBS poll from April 2010:
ReplyDeletehttp://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/312/312.pdf
The question about violence being justified is Number 74. on page 31; the percentages from Tea Partiers is 24% justified, 71% never justified, don't know/no answer 5%.
63% of tea partiers were getting their info from Fakes News, and 53% thought Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were reliable news.
The title of this poll was National Survey of Tea Party Supporters April 5-12, 2010; it surveyed 1,850 people, of whom 881 were Tea Partiers.
That puts the figures in these polls in the same general ball park for the segment of the political spectrum which is more willing to engage in violence against the government.
Or.........do I need to find more?
I'm betting there will be another one of these coming up in the next few months.
You are one smart puppy, Dog Gone.
ReplyDeleteThe Insurrection theory has no basis in reality
First off, it would contradict Article III, Section iii of the Constitution.
Anyway, as long as there are legal means for influencing the government, there is no reason for insurrection.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
What? No mention of the Second Amendment in that passage??? Again, the Second Amendment cannot be construed as allowing treason or “change by violence, revolution and terrorism” since armed revolt is unconstitutional under Article III, Section iii.
I wish that people would stop pandering to the lunatic element and come out and say this concept is pure nonsense.
The framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were clearly aware of what they were writing.
ReplyDelete"Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Antifederalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked" (Vandercoy, 28 Val. L. Rev. 1007-1039) (1994).
They were cognizant of the power of a standing army to help a tyrannical government, but also did not want to have to raise an army when attacked. Their solution was two-fold: 1) they would have congress, as the elected representatives, control the funding for the standing army, and 2) they would have a militia controlled by the state governments.
James Madison, ever a staunch supporter of the federalist line, wrote "To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence..." (Federalist 46, 310,311).
The point is, which Laci seems to have missed, is that the PURPOSE, of the 2nd amendment was to, in part, guard against tyranny by the federal government. Clearly, that purpose doesn't exist today, because as my friend Penigma and I agree, a citizen's militia going successfully against the standing army of any 1st or 2nd world country is impossible.
Laci has quoted Dennis v. US 341 US 494 (1951), without putting it in context. The Dennis decision was written at the height of the "red scare", and isn't good law today. Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 US 444 (1969) effectively overruled Dennis by its holding that the government may not criminalize abstract advocacy of force or law violation, but only may criminalize when there is a clear and imminent threat.
The reason that the 2nd amendment wasn't mentioned here was that the court wasn't concerned with any gun ownership. This was a conspiracy/free speech case, and Mr. Miller and his compatriots were accused of plotting to overthrow the government. (As a side note, the government's case was weak at best, and the case would not stand close scrutiny today).
An attempt at armed revolution in the US is virtually guaranteed to fail, and by definition, yes, those who are caught alive will be charged with treason. If by somehow improbable means, armed revolution were to succeed... well, it wouldn't be treason, since the victors write the rules and the history.
Continuing my comment:
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, those who are anti-gun, (who appear to be in this discussion, Mikeb and Laci), seem to always fall back on a literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Those who are not anti-gun, (and I'm not PRO gun either. I own 1 muzzle-loading rifle that hasn't been fired in over 10 years), generally prefer a more modern reading of the 2nd amendment, which does not insist that the 2nd amendment is only for the formation of a civilian militia. Its an interesting turn about, since the "pro gun" movement generally tend to be more conservative and advocate a literal reading of the Constitution, and the "anti-gun" movement tend to be more liberal and more comfortable with more modern interpretations of the Constitution.
Regardless, what the anti-gun movement doesn't appear to realize is that with the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller554 US 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago 561 US ___ (2010), the US Supreme Court settled the matter, at least at a high level. Private gun ownership can't be completely banned, no matter how much Mikeb or Laci might wish it so. The Court also has indicated, in dicta (just like Laci's quote from Dennis v. U.S.... matters in dicta are generally not related to the case before the court, and therefore aren't binding precedent as they are the opinion of that individual writer, not the court itsself) that regulation is permissible, as long as the regulations are reasonable. They Court did not, however, define those reasonable regulations, so additional litigation will undoubtedly be required to settle those questions.
I personally think that a 30 round clip is utterly unnecessary. I also don't think automatic weapons, artillery, rocket launchers, etc, are protected under our modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment. (I understand why some NRA fanatics think so, but I think they're wrong).
I also agree that those who have been adjudged to be mentally ill and violent should not have access to weapons. It would not have helped in Mr. Loughner's case, because 1) he had not been adjudged mentally ill, (adjudged means by a judge or mental health commission), and 2) he had never committed a violent crime.