Are Americans preparing for war?

[unfy]

Jerry, I don't mind you promoting your blog, but a post needs to have something more than a link in it, or I become hesitant to click it

Indeed, I ignored the link because there was no description associated with it :/

[GreyGeek]

Jerry, I don't mind you promoting your blog, but a post needs to have something more than a link in it, or I become hesitant to click it

Fair enough.   In that G+ posting I linked to the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) article in which some anti-gun advocates were funded by an unknown donor to do a poll.    Here  are my full comments:

Jerry L KrepsMay 4, 2013 (edited)  -  Public
During the gun debate in the Senate a poll was released claiming that 90% of all Americans were in favor of background checks.   It was actually 89.9% of the group that didn't own guns.    The exact questions given to the 2,703 that were selected "after a pilot study" were not made available but a footnote stated that they were "informed" that most background checks take just a few minutes BUT that in some cases it could take more than the 3 day maximum that the current law allows.  Reports of the study did not mention that only 69% (1,865)  responded to the telephone poll.   The authors did reveal that they didn't make any money on the poll, even though they didn't reveal the identity of the donor who funded the poll.   Polls usually give results the people who pay for them want, or they never see the light of day.  This poll was dressed up  in the usual statistical terms, chi-squared statements, etc...   It's a statistical analysis, right?  So it has to be the truth.

As I've pointed out before, it is also interesting that those who made the telephone calls and analyzed the results are not disinterested 3rd parties.   They have a horse in this race and they are whipping it as hard as they can.  They are Colleen L. Barry, Ph.D., M.P.P., Emma E. McGinty, M.S., Jon S. Vernick, J.D., M.P.H., and Daniel W. Webster, Sc.D., M.P.H.    Google them and see what they've said before on this issue.   Books, articles,  papers ... all pushing for more than just background checks or government databases.   And they have the  audacity to complain that when the NRA or the GOA publish data which contradicts their polls that those organizations are biased, bought off, corporate tools, etc...    That NEJM  poll has been widely and repeatedly quoted in the MNM as "proof" that Senators voting against the bill were "out of touch" with their constituents.  The blatant biases are also never mentioned in the MNM echo chamber.

  Now, the polling technique is being used yet again in an attempt to intimidate Senators who voted against the bill by claiming that their constituents were mad at them for not voting for the bill. GMA (ABC) gave a report about this "wide spread constituent protest" and  in an inadvertent camera sweep of the "crowd" doing the protesting we could plainly see that the "crowd" consisted of half a dozen people standing on the sidewalk outside the district office of one Senator.  It remains to be seen if the the Senators have the courage to stick to their principles and the wishes of the real majority of their constituents. 

Another poll was taken a month ago by the PoliceOne website (http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf), which is devoted to active police officers around the country:

More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were former/retired law enforcement.

FBI statistics state that in 2009 there were 706,886 officers enforcing the law in the USA.  http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_74.html     So, the survey isn't a microscopic sample of hundreds of millions of people, it sampled 2.1% of the entire police force  in this country.  Had the NEJM poll sampled a proportional number they would have phoned 14 million people.

The survey taken by PoliceOne wasn't preceded by  a "pilot study", its questions were revealed when the results were revealed, they didn't "push" the questions,  and they didn't do any statistical massaging of the results.  The survey wasn't funded by a secret donor, they funded it themselves.   

That survey also tells you what the vast majority of police officers think about the issues surrounding the gun control debate.  Over 60% of the respondents had a rank above "officer".(Q3)

91.3% support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been
convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable. (Q10)

91.4% believe that use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should result in stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargains. (Q13)

70% do not  support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales.(Q11)

79.7% do not think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime(Q7)

71% do not think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic
firearms, termed by some as "assault weapons," would have any effect on reducing violent crime.

[Dan W]

Thanks Jerry.  I really only wanted a brief description of the links contents, and I am going to be cracking down on the "drive by" posts and the duplicate postings  as I can find  the time

[Gary]

I think America is preparing for civil war, and Americans are bracing for it.

[GreyGeek]

I think America is preparing for civil war, and Americans are bracing for it.

Most Americans have no clue about any conditions which would lead one to believe that a civil war was on  the horizon. They are not as sensitive to the erosion of our Bill of Rights as we are.  And, those that are don't seem to care as long as Uncle Sam sends them their monthly checks.     BUT, a large number (most?)  Americans do see the our country circling the drain of financial ruin. and see civil unrest as a logical outcome.   Service jobs at fast food joints and retail stores do not give wages from which income taxes can be extracted that support growth in this country.  Indeed, such a base cannot even  support infrastructure maintenance.  They see our roads, bridges, sewer systems and electrical systems breaking down, while government taxes at all levels rise, with the money being given to those who claim some sort of "disability" which prevents them from working but not playing golf, or surfing the Internet, or going to Las Vegas.  Those who are working are now supporting over 10 million who are not, and 48% of Americans are on food stamps.

Americans see their friends and neighbors lose their home and move out of the neighborhood, the home remaining in bank foreclosure, empty, and beginning to decay, becoming the haunts of animals and drug abusers.   They see more and more people are falling out of the middle class, and some out of the 1% class, creating a larger and larger gulf between the very poor and the very rich.  The middle class, the bedrock of this country, is fast disappearing.   The only "growth" industry they see are the Congressmen or Senators who are stuffing their pockets.   

Most Americans now believe that an economic collapse is inevitable.  The only question is "how soon?"  They know that during times of economic instability in  the past civil unrest broke  out and people needed firearms to protect them and their property from roving gangs or thugs and thieves.  The next unrest will include roving groups of people who are starving and are searching for food, clothing, firearms and ammunition, in addition to the criminals looking for quick riches.  That is what they are arming for.  Most would not fire on the police, national guard or army, knowing that they would be killed by superior firepower coming back at them.

What about those who  would fight our increasingly socialist government in an attempt to restore the Constitution?    That doesn't look too bright either.    Most active combat requires people in good physical condition, usually between the ages of 17 and 45 or 50.    Most Americans over 45 are too physically out of shape to be combatants.   Most Americans under 45 are the product of our  educational institutions, which have been  subverted since about 1980, when "educators" started teaching our kids that our Founding Fathers were "DWEM"s  -- dead white european males, pilgrims were serial  killers, etc...

So, who's going to do all the shooting?  People over 50?   I can write letters and post articles all day long, day after day, but tote a rifle, ammo, food, water, spare clothing, tent and other gear week after week, fight after fight?   Only after Hell freezes over.

[Gary]

not all Americans are bracing for it, but even Gov Fishery dept ordered tens of thousands of rounds of hot hollow point .40 S&W ammo, it shows the gov is preparing for something. 

I have a friend that is a retired police chief.  I think the world of this guy.  Before he was a police chief, he was in the gov as an intelligence officer.   This guy is no dummy.   What does he have in his back yard?  He has a concrete and heavy steel fortified bunker, that looks to be over built for inclement weather in Nebraska.  When I ask him, what is up with the bunker, he says, you never know when one might need one, and he just laughs.

[bullit]

Most Americans now believe that an economic collapse is inevitable. 

I personally would qualify your statement "over the age of 40".  Younger that, you are dealing MOSTLY with minds of mush.  Certainly younger than 30.....

[GreyGeek]

I personally would qualify your statement "over the age of 40".  Younger that, you are dealing MOSTLY with minds of mush.  Certainly younger than 30.....

I agree, and I did.  Later on in that post I wrote:

Most Americans under 45 are the product of our  educational institutions, which have been  subverted since about 1980, when "educators" started teaching our kids that our Founding Fathers were "DWEM"s  -- dead white european males, pilgrims were serial  killers, etc...

45 years ago is 1968.  The year after Johnson's "Great Society"  Act was  passed.  It included elements which called  for re-writing our social studies books, etc...   Anyone born on that year or after would enter into middle school around 1978, and high school in 1981.   I resigned in 1980 from a rural high school after 10 years of teaching science and math.  I was, for 9 of those years, the negotiator for the school's chapter of the NEA.   I related in another post how,  while defending a 1st year art teacher and reaching an impasse with the board,  I agreed to arbitration.   The NEA sent a guy who immediately went into executive session with the board.  When he came out he said the "bad news" was that the teacher had to go.  The "good" news was that the board was adopting something the NEA called "Education 2000", educational goals for our kids for the future. Which would have been 10 years ago from our current time line.   That curriculum was the first  to undermine the Constitution and denigrate the work of the founders of America.   Most  of it has been removed from libraries and websites but many of its authors and supporters have "curriculum vitae" on line which mention their work on that series of textbooks.

So, anyone who attended middle school,  high school or college after 1970 got good doses of Liberal re-writing of American History, civics and stopped getting educated on our form of government, a republic, and the three legs of that make it stable --- executive, legislative and judicial, all built on the notion that when ANY Federal or State officer takes an  oath  of office they SWEAR that they will "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." and that they take that defense "willingly and without mental reservations or purpose of evasion".   At least half of our elected representatives lied while taking their oath  of office.

[Gary]

I do not think it is inevitable.  However, if a bus driver is aiming at a large tree, passengers on the bus will follow him to the accident scene,

It is like the leaders of this country are pointing the bus towards a big tree with their foot on the gas.  I swear they are trying to wreck the economy. 

[GreyGeek]

I swear they are trying to wreck the economy. 

Based on their actions I believe that is a valid conclusion.

[SS_N_NE]

Trying? Looks like pretty decent sucess at the moment.

[Gumby]

First press arrives Saturday.  In preparation, brass, primers, powders and those marvelous bullets have judiciously trickled in by the thousands.  Dad-in-Law saw the new carbine last weekend and stammered, "I guess it's not the time to be buyin' a rabbit gun."

I think I'm going to give 50-round gifts to our circle of high school grads this year, if I can master the press in time.  Preparing?  Sure... Obamacare ain't the only train wreck out there.

[unfy]

AFAIK, you can *give* them away, but ya can't *sell* them.

Be weary of legal terms and other such things concerning ammo & components manufacture.

Buutttttt....

One of us

One of us

One of us

One of us

*cough*

Plenty of us hand load around here, if ya need help just holler in the help or reloading forums

[Bucket]

This may be the best thread to ask this question:

Do you have to remove the foil hat before taking a shower (in non-fluoridated water of course) or should it be left on?

[DangerousDrummer]

Do you have to remove the foil hat before taking a shower (in non-fluoridated water of course) or should it be left on?

You probably shouldn't shower, your bucket will overflow!