Posted on 01/18/2013 11:55:00 AM PST by neverdem
Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.
Many gun control advocates talk of the right to gun ownership as relating to hunting and recreational uses only.
While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54% of Democrats agree with 75% of Republicans and 68% of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom.
As Americans search for answers to the Newtown shooting, attitudes on gun ownership are “not likely to change in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.” Scott Rasmussen explains in his latest weekly newspaper column that if Congress is “not willing to go as far as the president wants on gun control, perhaps they… might take stronger action on mental health issues or increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun.”
In the wake of last month’s horrific elementary school massacre in Connecticut, 51% favor stricter gun control laws. There is strong support for background checks of gun owners, but a plurality believes dealing with mental...
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Assuming that you're being serious here, I will point out that the Militia, for the most part, IS the people, performing their role as an armed deterrent to tyranny.
When you say, "... the militia (i.e., army or government controlled force) will become a threat ...", you are implying that the army is the Militia. That is not so. The Militia were recognized as the means of preventing the necessity of having a standing army, which has frequently been the tool of tyrants.
I mean, if we can't trust the Chinese Communists not to spin a poll, whom can we trust? </s>
.....Or we may very well end up by 2016 with a second American civil war along red states and blue states, resulting in both parting company.
OMG, thanks for bringing this to my attention....I have some corrections to make!
You’re a good sport, FRiend. While you’re editing, think about that last line where you split an infinitive three times! :)
As for good sport, I have no idea what you mean by that, FRiend.
Well, it seems the 35 percent governs the 65 percent, who must be too confused to assert themselves.
Please accept my apologies. Too many windows open on the pc, I inadvertently posted to you what I meant to send to someone on another thread entirely.
That person specifically asked for input on something he was writing, which is why I offered it. I don’t go around telling people they split infinitives unless they indicate they want that sort of advice.
Accepted!
Bttt.
You are confusing the militia, which is the people (technically all males ages 18-45,) with the “standing army” which is the government military. The militia should always be armed to keep any standing army in check, put down insurrection, or repel foreign invasion. Th Founders did not trust standing armies and believed in conscription to fight wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.