Study: Nearly 30% Of Americans Advocate For An Armed Rebellion
Nearly 30% of Americans advocate for an armed rebellion (RT, May 2, 2013):
Nearly one-third of Americans say an armed revolution might need to occur in the next few years to prevent an escalating war against constitutional liberties, a new study finds.
Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind surveyed 863 US residents randomly in late April and found that 29 percent of those polled believe a revolution isn’t just imminent but imperative.
According to the study, 29 percent of Americans agree that “an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties” during the next few years. Forty-seven percent said they disagreed with the statement entirely, with one-fifth of the sample saying they weren’t sure how to answer.
When quizzing only the most conservative of respondents, though, the call for revolution is supported by a much more significant chunk of the sample pool. PublicMind found that 44 percent of Republicans polled in the survey agree that an armed revolt is the answer to an apparent infringement of liberties. By comparison, 27 percent Independents agreed with the statement, as did only 18 percent of Democrats polled.
Pollsters say there is a reason for this inkling towards revolution, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that it involves a constitutional right that has become increasingly more of a contested issue among members of Congress and regular citizens alike in recent month. At the heart of this issue, suggests PublicMind, is the gun control debate that has rekindled discussion of the Second Amendment since last year’s Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shootings. According to the results of a second question asked during the study, 73 percent of Democrats say Congress needs new gun laws to protect Americans from gun violence, but 65 percent of Republicans are against any changes whatsoever to current legislation..
“If there was a bipartisan moment after Sandy Hook to pass gun control legislation, it’s past,” Fairleigh Dickinson professor of political science Dan Cassino writes in the report that accompanies the poll. “Partisan views have strongly re-asserted themselves, and there’s no sign that they’ll get any weaker.”
“The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” Cassino adds. “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”
Earlier this week, RT covered a separate poll conducted recently by Fox News in which respondents were asked, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” The result of that survey when coupled with similar ones made during the last dozen years or so reveals that Americans are less willing now to part with personal freedoms in exchange for an added sense of security than they were after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
“Whether or not the government overreacted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (and, given the information available at the time, reasonable people can disagree), Americans then broadly supported a vigorous domestic counterterrorism policy,” Alan Rozenshtein wrote for Lawfare Blog. “This time around, a rights-restrictive approach might not garner the same public support — if indeed that’s the road the government intends to go down.”
Nearly one-third of Americans say an armed revolution might need to occur in the next few years to prevent an escalating war against constitutional liberties, a new study finds.
Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind surveyed 863 US residents randomly in late April and found that 29 percent of those polled believe a revolution isn’t just imminent but imperative.
According to the study, 29 percent of Americans agree that “an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties” during the next few years. Forty-seven percent said they disagreed with the statement entirely, with one-fifth of the sample saying they weren’t sure how to answer.
When quizzing only the most conservative of respondents, though, the call for revolution is supported by a much more significant chunk of the sample pool. PublicMind found that 44 percent of Republicans polled in the survey agree that an armed revolt is the answer to an apparent infringement of liberties. By comparison, 27 percent Independents agreed with the statement, as did only 18 percent of Democrats polled.
Pollsters say there is a reason for this inkling towards revolution, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that it involves a constitutional right that has become increasingly more of a contested issue among members of Congress and regular citizens alike in recent month. At the heart of this issue, suggests PublicMind, is the gun control debate that has rekindled discussion of the Second Amendment since last year’s Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook, Connecticut shootings. According to the results of a second question asked during the study, 73 percent of Democrats say Congress needs new gun laws to protect Americans from gun violence, but 65 percent of Republicans are against any changes whatsoever to current legislation..
“If there was a bipartisan moment after Sandy Hook to pass gun control legislation, it’s past,” Fairleigh Dickinson professor of political science Dan Cassino writes in the report that accompanies the poll. “Partisan views have strongly re-asserted themselves, and there’s no sign that they’ll get any weaker.”
“The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” Cassino adds. “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”
Earlier this week, RT covered a separate poll conducted recently by Fox News in which respondents were asked, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” The result of that survey when coupled with similar ones made during the last dozen years or so reveals that Americans are less willing now to part with personal freedoms in exchange for an added sense of security than they were after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
“Whether or not the government overreacted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (and, given the information available at the time, reasonable people can disagree), Americans then broadly supported a vigorous domestic counterterrorism policy,” Alan Rozenshtein wrote for Lawfare Blog. “This time around, a rights-restrictive approach might not garner the same public support — if indeed that’s the road the government intends to go down.”
Comment
-
Comment by ted dura on June 24, 2013 at 7:48pm
-
Comment by Murray Stirling on June 24, 2013 at 7:48pm
-
The government is supposed to be there for the people not for themselves.There is a problem here Houston.
-
-
talk is cheap when your ready to follow these guys then your ready --if you don't get a pair this big you don't want to be free-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cn27YziV...
-
Comment by Nobody Will Observe on June 24, 2013 at 7:46pm
-
GOOD SHITE THOUGH! Please feel free to start a discussion at NoCP
I would be happy for any and all info you would be willing to post there!!!
-
-
Bildo I strongly disagree! Don't be a fool. It's called 'By the point of a bayonet' ILLEGAL GOV> Cares not about law legal or lawful. Please believe me when I say, it depends on what is is. A ticket is one thing. The State is another. If it matters to the Feds enough no mumbo jubo anything! will stop them. I mean really you think otherwise? Are we speaking of the same entity?
And Again I DO NOT DISPUTE WHAT YOU SAY AND HAVE USED IT.
-
Comment by Bildo on June 24, 2013 at 7:39pm
-
Screw it. Copy/paste will at least get it to you.
The original NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and, "POINT-OF-ORDER!..."
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
Quite possibly one of the most useful documents I have ever published is my NOTICE OF MISTAKE for Dean. This is a useful, powerful document that also instantly removes SURETY. I framed it in such a way that you can replace the name "Dean Clifford" with your name, and you can make a pad of these things. Have lots of copies to hand out to friends and opposing counsel. Hell the court clerk loves these things too...make sure the court clerk has one as well. Just make sure you UNDERSTAND what the document says. Read it carefully and understand what the words mean, because you will be challenged. And remember, the NOTICE by its very nature, presents several questions.
Do not permit the proceedings to move forward without these questions being answered!
If you want to submit it as an EXHIBIT in an AFFIDAVIT you can. They can't refuse your SWORN TESTIMONY!
NOTICE OF MISTAKE
1. TAKE NOTICE THAT: In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as an "accused" and/or a "suspect".
2. FORGIVE ME: If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, by responding to “You”, and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”, and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION, such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, and please forgive me.
3. If I, AND/OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led A COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or A GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies, to believe, by responding to “You”, and/or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN”, and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION, such bodies HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am, in ANY CAPACITY, a Pro Se litigant and/or a LEGAL PERSON in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE, as I DO NOT CONSENT and WAIVE THE BENEFIT to such titles. Please forgive me.
4. THEREFORE: As I have no knowledge of who “You” and or “JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION ANY COURT and/or STATUTORY BODY and/or GOVERNMENT SERVICE and/or AGENTS and/or OFFICERS of such bodies [HEREAFTER "YOU"], HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY ARE "YOU" ADDRESSING me as such?
5. As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT [In the custody of Justice Wailan Low, ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE: Court File Number CV-11-430464], WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that I, as a MAN who is not lawfully entitled to the BENEFITS of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE [PPSACA13078], have any SURETY in this matter?
6. As GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME. WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to ANY NAME?
7. WHAT EVIDENCE do YOU have, that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE and/or an EMPLOYEE of the “GOVERNMENT”?
8. WHAT EVIDENCE do "YOU" have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT in this matter?As such, I am returning your OFFER, DECLINED, for immediate DISCHARGE and CLOSURE.
Autograph__________________________________
- "POINT-OF-ORDER!"..... (Scott has typed-out two versions of this so far...use some words at your own peril) :/
Here is my court room position in a nutshell.
You do not accept surety – EVER.
Step 1: Reserve all rights.
Step 2: Direct your case and do not let them proceed. Present NOTICE OF MISTAKE, and REMEMBER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS IT CONTAINS. If they do not answer these questions you object, and declare that unless the questions in your NOTICE OF MISTAKE are answered, you CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
Anything outside of this supports their position that you are “playing” their game, and thus it is presumed that you understand the rules. The only way to counter this is to declare that you CANNOT UNDERSTAND the rules without these questions being answered.
Think very carefully about this. If you are a novice at chess, and did not know about castling
and its rules, you might raise the obvious question, “Why do you get to move two pieces?” If I refuse to explain that rule to you, and even deny you the chance to present your understanding of the rules, would you continue playing chess with me?If you attempt to stop the game for this reason, that's when you're going to “understand” that this was a chess game for money; and that I have big, burly thugs to enforce this game. You claimed to know the rules for the engagement, even if you later disclaimed being an expert.
If you UNDERSTAND, you accept SURETY.
As stated YOU=SURETY
If you're ever in a courtroom and do not wish to have the "benefit of SURETY", you have but to object to being addressed as "YOU". There are many ways to do this. Dean Clifford might say, in response to being addressed as "YOU", "If I have led the court to believe that I am SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE. Please forgive me." (FUN FACT: A court MUST ALWAYS grant forgiveness when asked and/or requested)
Others, like myself, are a lot more succinct. For example, I might respond, "FUCK YOU! You're a YOU, I'm a ME! By what AUTHORITY do YOU address ME as a "YOU"?", because I can get away with it. The reason I can get away with it is that I UNDERSTAND the UCC as opposed to ONE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC FRAUD which spreads mythology and bullshit about the UCC.
Section 1, Subsection 308, of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE covers RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This is a well-known fact, and this is how you use it.
Version #1: On entering the court, you aggressively make the first motion, that being, the RESERVATION OF YOUR RIGHTS. But since you're the only one in the courtroom with ACTUAL STANDING, you can be a total dick about it. You don't RESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, you RESERVE ALL RIGHTS! Not just yours, EVERYONE's. You remove everyone else's rights and give them to yourself. WHY? Because "Fuck off that's WHY!" You're the only one with STANDING.
If you HOLD the power, WIELD it...don't be such a pussy! If you're entitled to ALL RIGHTS, CLAIM THEM. This is how you do it.
When the "justice" starts speaking, interrupt them. Say, "Point of order!" They will immediately be silent. At that point, state "I believe I am the only party with standing, so barring objection from the court, I wish to RESERVE ALL RIGHTS now, and henceforth. Are there any objections from the court?" As the court has no standing to respond, simply speak to the record as such, "Let the record show that I have reserved all rights, and the court has not objected." At this point if they say anything to you, you simply say, "Objection. The record shows that I have reserved all rights, and I have not granted you leave to speak. Why are you speaking?"
Do the same when opposing counsel attempts to speak. You will then be posed the question, "How do you wish to proceed in this matter?" for that is the one question a slave has the right to ask. What is their master's wish?
Version #2: *judge begins to speak at his trial* "Point of order!" *judge goes silent* "BARRING ANY OBJECTION FROM THE COURT, at this time I WISH to reserve ALLl rights. Is there ANY objection from the court?
*Jeopardy Music*
Any objections?
*Clock Ticking*
....Lookin' for OBJECTIONS FROM THE COURT! Going Once... (repeat second and third time)
As the court has NOT objected I have , IN FACT, reserved ALL rights. (It is a FACT that's ON RECORD, and I wish the court to SHUT ITS FUCKING PIE-HOLE!) (...be silent).
QUESTION: if you have RESERVED ALL RIGHTS, and they don't understand what you are referring to, when you speak of the PUBLIC RECORD, ASK your BITCH SLAVE, WHAT THE FUCK? ...like so:
"Point of ORDER! It is MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, A COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. Am I MISTAKEN?
As I, myself have, IN FACT, RESERVED ALL RIGHTS (Not YOUR rights, ALL rights. The rights of everyone in the court have been surrendered to you!) I wish to convene a COURT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD (Barring ANY objections from the court).
First: You are not making MOTIONS. Do NOT allow them to say that they are.
Re: "I don't understand", respond that you require the supernumerary to RECUSE HIM/HER SELF as they are on record as being LEGALLY INCOMPETENT to do their job.NOBILITY (KINGS AND QUEENS) EXPRESS THEIR "WISHES".
ADMIRALTY ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS BY REQUESTING, ADDRESSING THEIR SUBORDINATES AS "MR".
GENERALS GIVE ORDERS.
The fact that if you have all the rights, and everybody else has none, you are CLEARLY the KING. So you are going to have to learn to give instruction by expressing your wishes. This is why they are asking how you "wish to proceed". Courts grant and test your SOVEREIGNTY all the time. You simply have to listen to the words they are using. At this time you may respond, "I wish to prove to some ass-wipe who sounds like he's got a dick in his mouth, the things I know, so I wish to go to trial PRO SE. But I wouldn't recommend this...I would simply wish the case to be dismissed.
If they say anything else besides "I agree, case dismissed", you exercise your AUTHORITY by questioning. MASTERS QUESTION, SLAVES ANSWER. For instance if a "justice" said anything except "I agree. Case dismissed," you question why they are even speaking. "I'm sure you'll recall Mr. (insert justice's name here) that at the beginning of these proceedings I explicitly reserved all rights, including yours. Have I not made my wishes clear?"
When you're in the court room dealing with these babbling, sacks-of-shit, learn to use the breaks. Repeat after me, “I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS”. If they ignore your question, then your next response should be, “OBJECTION. If the court cannot answer my question, then I do not understand the nature and cause of these proceedings.” Keep repeating that, and repeating that, and repeating that...until they answer your fucking question.
Always remember to respond in the form of a question. A question serves the dual-purpose of establishing your authority, and negating the possibility of UNDERSTANDING; because before, the most powerful of these questions is, "Who are you?" UNDERSTANDING cannot be presumed until that question is answered.
Above all, questioning deflects SURETY.
-
-
they trust lawyers that don't know crap about the law-most judges have NEVER even read the constitution and thats the sad truth--like i said we must play dirty-
-
-
The prisons are full of sovereigns because they didn't have enough knowledge. They call themselves sovereign without really knowing what it's all about and how to defend themselves. Just because you call yourself a sovereign doesn't mean you are one.
I'd love to post the Notice of Mistake but there is no "add a file" button here.
-
-
Bout sums it up optix.
Hang together or hang separate. There is no free pass recourse. AND although Bildo speak truth. The Prisons are full of Sovereigns. Is what it is!
Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” —U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
No Confidence Party
-
-
Legal recourse? None. Lawful recourse? Yes. You get a traffic ticket and show up at their private corporation tribunal? You just CONSENTED to whatever they want to do with you. They aren't after the man. They are after the surety on that "charge" and you walked into THEIR court and filled the shoes of the surety.
Don't detain the judge. Just let the judge know that he is forcing you to charge him under 28USC455 for bringing "Fraud Upon The Court". You have no rights in their administrative jurisdiction. You need to file a claim against the oath-breakers in a court of record. A court of record is common law, Article lll.I will post a Notice of Mistake here. You send this in with your birth certificate. The BC is the surety. Once you send these in, the court then has the surety in custody. Then you do NOT show up for their court.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
A Prelude to WW III ? It Seems There We Are Trailblazing Idiocy into More Blood and Destruction!
They're rolling out the 25th Amendment trying to stop Joe Biden from insanely thrusting the US in a…See More
Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]
DW Description: Chris Langan is known to have the highest IQ in the world, somewhere between 195 and 210. To give you an idea of what this means, the average...
RFK Jr. Appoinment Rocks the World of the Federal Health Agncies and The Big Pharma Profits!
The Appointment by Trump as Secretary of HHS has sent shockwaves through the federal government…See More
Somewhere in California.
Tom Waites and Iggy Pop meet in a midnight diner in Jim Jarmusch's 2003 film Coffee and Cigarettes.
Whatever Happened?
Whatever Happened? The unsung heroes will go about their dayRegardless of the welcome they've…See More
"cheeki kea Nice work! Thank you! "
"Chin up folks, once the low hanging fruit gets picked off a clearer view will reveal the higher…"
"Your right LP it's insane for sure and hopefully improbable, keeping an open mind. Checking…"
"The white dude in the center is Bill Gates!!! "
© 2024 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!
Join 12160 Social Network