• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Security vs. Freedom - Poll trend

GunnyGene

Racist old man
BANNED
Interesting trend in the polls on this question over the past few years. We're less and less inclined to give up freedoms for security. This has to be of concern to the current administration, given their performance and ideology since 2008, and may be driving some of the legislation and other things going on relative to firearms and ammo.

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.

Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.

“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation:

Bucking the trend, 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.
Forty-seven percent of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43 percent in favor.
Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.

More: http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americans-fe ... an-terror/
 
Those are some interesting figures Gunny.

My fear is maybe it's too late to turn the tide. The groundswell of support that would be needed to upset the applecart now would be tremendous...even precedent setting. 9/11 has done much to awaken the western world to a malevolent and growing threat.

Our collective responses are mixed with the very ideals that make us free. Those ideals also make us vulnerable to those who would wish to do us harm. We have already lost the fight if we allow them to ruin and rule our free societies with fear. Or, if we trade freedom for gates, fences, metal detectors, check points, documents and submission to arbitrary authorities.

After the Boston bombing, a couple muslim nutcases were arrested here in Canada for planning to bomb a VIA Rail train...and of course the same questions of increased security are being raised. However, as it stands right now it doesn't appear that will happen...yet.
 
I would be inclined to say that some of these polls might be a little skewed. As I would be hopeful and happy to hear that more Americans are starting to wake up from the trance and mundane way of life under a socialist conformity, I would be willing to bet that many more are happily naive about it. I really think these numbers come from the people that already had the right (<- talk about double meaning) views but didn't speak up before... who are now forced to step into the firing line in order to retain their rights as natural citizens of this once Republic.
 
assimilation.gif


Pretty sure that sums up our Gov't attitude towards it's people.
 
aksavanaman said:
I would be inclined to say that some of these polls might be a little skewed. As I would be hopeful and happy to hear that more Americans are starting to wake up from the trance and mundane way of life under a socialist conformity, I would be willing to bet that many more are happily naive about it. I really think these numbers come from the people that already had the right (<- talk about double meaning) views but didn't speak up before... who are now forced to step into the firing line in order to retain their rights as natural citizens of this once Republic.

I would tend to agree with that AK. There is always the silent majority who don't speak up until its necessary to do so. However, they are not always so silent. Often, if the powers that be actually listened they would hear the smaller voices echoing the same sentiments. Unfortunately, 'squeaky wheels get the grease' and the louder they yell the more attention gets paid. The media is to blame for much of that nonsense because they keep giving airtime to special interest groups and those who have emotional claptrap to sell us.

We can only hope that as people wake up and start recognizing their peril they won't run and hide but will stand for their freedom. I fear we've gone soft though and it might take really dire circumstances to jar people out of their complacency.
 
I'm curious CMC, I know there's quite a few Canadians on MO.com (as well as other nationalities) how do these "gun battles" played out in the U.S. reverberate in Canada, if at all? I mean I know enough that it's definitely not as easy to own firearms in your country as it is ours, but what about the politics that go along with it? I mean are you guys as divided as we are on the subject? Is there a debate about firearms rights? And these are genuine questions by the way, I'm very interested in how others around the world are fighting their battles?
 
aksavanaman said:
I would be inclined to say that some of these polls might be a little skewed.
Any individual poll (or a sample of anything from bullets to marshmallows) can easily be off by quite a bit, so it's the long term trend from multiple samples that counts. The tendency, for most people, is to only look at the most recent numbers, which is a mistake when it comes to statistics - especially sampling stats. Did this sort of thing for a living for 15 years, and it is difficult to get folks to focus on the trend instead of the latest blip.

And of course when it comes to matters of public interest, the media and others usually trumpet the most recent numbers if they support whatever agenda they may have, and downplay the trend, knowing full well how short the public's attention span is.
 
I don't like polls either. Too easy to manipulate.

But if I have my freedom, I'll provide my own security thanks.

And I am really certain that I would do a better job than someone else.
 
John A. said:
I don't like polls either. Too easy to manipulate.

But if I have my freedom, I'll provide my own security thanks.

And I am really certain that I would do a better job than someone else.

It helps to understand that polls (and statistics generally) are not about how accurate the estimate is, but rather how inaccurate it is. They're more about the state of our knowledge, than the state of the world. :)
 
aksavanaman said:
I'm curious CMC, I know there's quite a few Canadians on MO.com (as well as other nationalities) how do these "gun battles" played out in the U.S. reverberate in Canada, if at all? I mean I know enough that it's definitely not as easy to own firearms in your country as it is ours, but what about the politics that go along with it? I mean are you guys as divided as we are on the subject? Is there a debate about firearms rights? And these are genuine questions by the way, I'm very interested in how others around the world are fighting their battles?
There is so much more I could say here, but I shortened it up!! Sorry for the length....but you asked!! :lol:

First off, we are so plugged in to US news up here that every incident down there hits home here.

We have a very active gun owner, shooting sports and hunting lobby.

Canadians are absolutely divided on the subject of gun control and firearm ownership. Lots of bleeding and gushing with emotion hearts up here. We get mixed messages from the law enforcement community. If you ask most cops on the street...legislation doesn't mean crap, it doesn't keep guns out the hands of criminals...duh!! If you ask the brass...well it's political then. You might get a half-decent answer or an outright line of BS. Depends what the flavor of the month is.

There are fierce debates on the subject and our side (the right side..as you said earlier :D ) has gained back a little ground this last year by scrapping the federal long gun registry.

Our laws are a little complicated to navigate but once you qualify it's not that bad. As a licensed person I can own any gun I want unless it is on the prohibited list...which is however extensive. I can purchase ammo (in whatever quantity) as long as I flash my firearm license at the store. There is no waiting period and no record keeping of that.

There are 3 levels of licensing since 1995 or so. Prohibited, restricted and unrestricted. You can no longer get a prohibited license...you have to be grandfathered or a legit gun broker. I qualified with 2 safety courses for both a restricted weapon and unrestricted weapon license. Anyone can unless you are a convicted criminal or a verifiable loonie!

Background checks are done when a license is issued by the federal gov't and no further wait is required unless it is a purchase of a handgun or other restricted weapon...such as an AR. I can own an AR here as long as it's semi-auto and I am a member of a gun club and take it only to an approved range to fire. Applies to handguns as well. AK's for instance are prohibited...don't ask why because the answer doesn't even make nonsense!

Just like most weapons on the prohibited list, it is not the function but the form that makes them...bad...jeez, it's idiotic. It's black...it looks menacing. An example...the Franchi SPAS 12...prohibited cuz it looks mean. We can own pump or semi-auto shotguns so why not one that can switch modes?!? Its a classic and would love to own one, but I can't.

I have to say, yes we have many restrictions and we'd like to see things loosened up a little more but it's really not that bad. I can legally own and have in my house some pretty cool and devastating firepower if I choose to.

I'm outta breath! ;)
 
Thanks for the Canadian Firearm Laws lesson, ehhh :lol:

I do mean that though, I'm sure many people in the U.S pretty much think that weapons anywhere else are strictly outlawed (sadly that list is extensive!) so it's nice to know that you're still have the right to bear arms... even if it means jumping through hoops to get there. Thanks again!
 
Funny you should say that, because it is a very common misconception about our gun control situation here.

To give you an idea of how idiotic the prohibited list is...as I said AK's are not allowed at all. But the look-a-like Czech Arms VZ58 is classed as an unrestricted weapon, like any hunting rifle or shotgun. So is the Kriss Super V Vector .45ACP...unrestricted. No real rhyme or reason to it, only public opinion from what I can tell. And, there's more. They're more likely to ban the Mini-14 than AR15 cuz it was used in a mass shooting 20 years ago...it's all perception dude.
 
cmcdonald said:
Funny you should say that, because it is a very common misconception about our gun control situation here.

To give you an idea of how idiotic the prohibited list is...as I said AK's are not allowed at all. But the look-a-like Czech Arms VZ58 is classed as an unrestricted weapon, like any hunting rifle or shotgun. So is the Kriss Super V Vector .45ACP...unrestricted. No real rhyme or reason to it, only public opinion from what I can tell. And, there's more. They're more likely to ban the Mini-14 than AR15 cuz it was used in a mass shooting 20 years ago...it's all perception dude.

Just like DiFi's list. Many hunting rifles can be made to "look" menacing by adding a couple plastic parts. The added parts do nothing to make it more or less lethal. They just look mean. Take a look at the Mini-14. With furniture it looks benign but add composite stock, fore end grip and fore pistol grip and it would be illegal according to Miss Pinhead from CA. It's not the scary that kills but the tiny projectile that emerges after pulling the trigger. But don't try to tell her that...she stayed at a Holiday Inn express once...and looked at naked gun pictures...so now she is an expert...
 
I'm not being cruel, I've been watching her and her actions pretty close in the last several months. I really think there is some dementia or something going on there.
 
John A. said:
I'm not being cruel, I've been watching her and her actions pretty close in the last several months. I really think there is some dementia or something going on there.

It's not just her. It's the echo chamber she lives in with others of the same ideology. The result of this is that over-reaction becomes the normal reaction, as we saw most recently in the Boston door to door search. That echo chamber effect also bleeds over into other areas, such as expanding the definition of WMD (which use to be solely applicable to nukes) to include any bullet launcher they don't like.
 
I agree that her age seems to be getting the best of her. It appears to me that some of her colleagues are distancing themselves from her. But like Gunny said, it could be a combination of age and the political box she has made her home in. Wanting to see their Utopia before dying...but she is not the only one. That ditz Pelosi is just as bad. The crap she spews would comical if not for the fact she helps run this country...
 
OhioArcher said:
I agree that her age seems to be getting the best of her. It appears to me that some of her colleagues are distancing themselves from her. But like Gunny said, it could be a combination of age and the political box she has made her home in. Wanting to see their Utopia before dying...but she is not the only one. That ditz Pelosi is just as bad. The crap she spews would comical if not for the fact she helps run this country...

If this self-reinforcing paranoia continues, I can foresee a day when "bleeding" the brakes on your car will be forbidden speech. :roll:
 
GunnyGene said:
John A. said:
I'm not being cruel, I've been watching her and her actions pretty close in the last several months. I really think there is some dementia or something going on there.

It's not just her. It's the echo chamber she lives in with others of the same ideology. The result of this is that over-reaction becomes the normal reaction, as we saw most recently in the Boston door to door search. That echo chamber effect also bleeds over into other areas, such as expanding the definition of WMD (which use to be solely applicable to nukes) to include any bullet launcher they don't like.
Glad you mentioned the WMD classification Gunny. I had wondered about that and then promptly let it go. What's with that? Anyone know why they classified something with just a bit more kick than a pipe bomb in the same class as nukes or massive biological or chemical weapons?

I have to admit, when I first saw it on the news I almost chuckled.
 
cmcdonald said:
GunnyGene said:
John A. said:
I'm not being cruel, I've been watching her and her actions pretty close in the last several months. I really think there is some dementia or something going on there.

It's not just her. It's the echo chamber she lives in with others of the same ideology. The result of this is that over-reaction becomes the normal reaction, as we saw most recently in the Boston door to door search. That echo chamber effect also bleeds over into other areas, such as expanding the definition of WMD (which use to be solely applicable to nukes) to include any bullet launcher they don't like.
Glad you mentioned the WMD classification Gunny. I had wondered about that and then promptly let it go. What's with that? Anyone know why they classified something with just a bit more kick than a pipe bomb in the same class as nukes or massive biological or chemical weapons?

I have to admit, when I first saw it on the news I almost chuckled.

I think there was some left coast court case or something in the last few years, that ruled that anything that is capable of killing more than 3 people at a time could be considered a WMD. Personally, I think it's total BS and all about politics and hype. The anti-everything brigade loves it, since it makes everything scary scary. :x
 
So this change is along the same lines as the whole changes of definition attributed to an "enemy combatant"? Seems like we're moving the goal posts to suit.....
 
Back
Top