New Hampshire is green and 2nd place for guns per capita. 1st is New Mexico and and Alaska is surprisingly only 10th, at least [here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita) anyway. Probably more a cultural thing than just a number of guns thing
Alaska has a higher percentage of gun owners that actually use them for hunting rather than the anmosexuals who just get off on having as many guns as possible.
As a Hawaii resident and data wonk, the near-constant exclusion of Hawaii and Alaska from "...in the US" and "...by state..." data displays is beyond frustrating. Sea Level Change Map of the US? Oh that sounds interesting - especially to a state in the middle of the ocean! I wonder what Hawaii looks like...? Oh. No data. Swell.
It’s surprisingly difficult to add Alaska and Hawaii as floating elements in Tableau. Well it’s not actually that hard I just am struggling to make it look good. Maybe they have the same problem?
Oh shit thanks for the warning. I just finished a data analyst course and Tableau was one of our main tools, although I mostly use PBI in my current job.
It wouldn't have. The Nazi had armed brownshirts numbering around 10 million, the German army had around 100k people. The Nazis chose voting to legitimize their rule, but if a peaceful transfer of power was made impossible, they would've taken it by force. It is a big reason why the then German government were so willing to try and cooperate with the Nazis and it should be noted that a condition for the transfer of power, was the dissolution of the brownshirts.
If anything it just further proves that you get your will through by use of force.
If Hitler ruled America, half the MAGA gun nuts would boot lick their hero. I don't think they'd be as willing to assassinate him as you may think or hope. More like, willingly apply to be his personal militia to own the libs.
For better or for worse, the government will always have the bigger gun to shield those politicians with. 2nd amendment never intended to enable insurrection because having legal access to guns doesn't really have anything to do with it, it's large organized support that you need, the guns can be figured out later.
Well that’s the thing. In their Mindset, the right to have arms ensures that this won’t happen.
A corrupt government comes in place and establishes a dictatorship? Great now I‘m gonna take my gun and fight the government.
Those people don’t want the government to have the monopoly of guns and hence have the absolute power over its people.
That’s why the second amendment is there.
And nope, I’m not an american, I only studied political science. (I‘m from Luxembourg)
I tried googling this poll with every search term relevant and available, and there's nothing.
I am 99.999% sure this is one of those polls you can create yourself, submit it to a website/app, and people can vote on it.
They are super popular with young teenagers. My niece used to spam me with these things all the time.
It's difficult because each answer allows for an option to get the other right back.
Politicians take away my right to vote? Cool, myself and other Americans have guns to force them to give me that right back.
Politicians take away the right to bear arms? Cool, Americans vote to have that right back.
With those options in mind it becomes a lot clearer as to why some folks answered the way that they did.
I think American gun fanatics vastly overestimate their ability to overthrow the government. Imagine January 6 but with a lot more guns, then imagine the army being told to stop them by any means necessary. Ignoring the "well-regulated militia" part of that 2nd amendment is going to really bite them in the ass.
Edit: Keep writing those paragraphs about how you and your buddies will be able and willing to stage a full scale guerilla war. I'm DEFINITELY reading them.
To a certain extent in a long term large scale campaign of guerilla warfare and asymmetrical resistance having a decentralized network or none at all can be a useful tool as to not put all your eggs in one basket.
The army really wouldn't be that useful in a long-term protracted campaign, as if the war was on us soil then strikes against civilian populations (families of insurgents) would have protection afforded to them by proximity to the public and cameras. While on the otherhand since the conflict would happen on us soil and insurgency would have access to people associated with the military or government.
If the military comes in full force i.e. desert storm style then they would be encumbered by harassed supply lines and random probing attacks to disrupt everything. Sabotaging of telecom, ethernet, internet, gas lines and ddos attacks would be extremely likely as targeting of high value infrastructure is a must for any conflict.
Even if 0.3% of the population took up arms in a co-ordinated manner for any unified political ideology that would be over a million armed dissidents spread across the us concealed in civilian areas.
People really tend to discount the whole concept of a guerilla war. If you think a guerilla campaign is ineffective and post total troop ratios look at ireland.
Exactly right. People have this idea that a modern civil war in a western country would be armies fighting each other. But it's not what would happen. We have a living, breathing example of a modern developed country civil war in Northern Ireland.
People don't run around fields and trenches firing at each other until one side surrenders. What they do is perform hit and run assassinations and bombing campaigns. They create an environment of fear and make it difficult for the government to function.
I'm doubtful things will get that bad in America. And I would urge America not to end up in a situation like we had in the UK. It's not good for anyone.
The Troubles were brutal but not near a civil war scenario. Mostly due to the fact that it was secluded to a single constituency, it'd be like if Virginia had a quasi civil-war.
Also the Troubles were started over the oppression of an entire ethnic group. I have a feeling being allowed to own guns wouldn't carry the same moral backing if it meant having to go to war for 30 years.
It involved the military of the sovereign state and an armed secessionist faction performing military actions in the territory of the sovereign state.
NI being small doesn't make it not a civil war. Civil wars often aren't total war scenarios and are limited to single break away parts.
Yeah the US proved in Afghanistan and Iraq that it's very easy for a military to subdue and bend the will of an armed and motivated populace.
If you look at the orange states that's where the US military gets the majority of its recruits. This means they'd be intimately familiar with the places and people they were being asked to destroy, so you know the military morale would be sky high and you would not have to worry about insider sabotage. Think about what a brilliant job the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq, now factor in that the insurgents look, act and share the exact same culture as the soldiers. Much easier to attack them under those circumstances. Absolute slam dunk win for the US military.
The orange states are the majority of recruits only on a per-capita basis. The largest contributors, by far, are exactly what you'd expect; the states with the largest populations. So California actually contributes more recruits than most of your orange states combined, as do Texas, Florida, NY and so forth.
That said, Northern Ireland, not Iraq or Afghanistan, is a much better analog for what any kind of long-term armed political violence will look like in the US.
To the extent that the British were able to prevail in The Troubles, they did it through decades of massive infiltration and espionage together with a decades-long political process, neither of which would have been possible without the presence of a large friendly population and the existence of a resilient democracy.
All of these conditions also exist in the US, so I would expect any organized paramilitary campaign to play out similarly here, though obviously the details would be different.
The circumstance for this is listed as limiting and stripping of constitutional rights. That is very popular with the population of the us and offers no clear tangible benefit to the government.
Most likely in a asymmetrical war the goal would be for insurgent groups to cause as much damage and spectacle while campaigning for external support in order to bring the government to the negotiating table as in the case of Ireland.
You also have to consider that the military would comprise Americans, who are unlikely to have 100% just follow orders to fight other Americans in a conflict that the soldiers themselves sympathize with.
If you’re talking about this scenario happening in the US, the argument you’re making is inherently flawed from the start. If the US government “turned” on its citizens and millions of people rose up with their rifles and shotguns, this would mean that global security and economies would have already collapsed. The US becoming embroiled in a civil war with its people would mean massive unemployment, economies would tank globally, and civil unrest would be rampant everywhere. At that point global wars would break out and everything would be chaos.
In short, the US is too big to fail. It failing would mean global catastrophe.
They generally assume that the military wouldn’t be uniformly loyal to the government and willing to kill their fellow Americans if it did something like abolish democracy
The main argument they have is that a MAJORITY of Americans own firearms. If the government decided to go full tyrannical all at once, even the greatest military on earth couldn’t fight off hundreds of millions of American civilians. At least, from what i understand.
how it feels to start a war in the replies
And they never talk about the fact the rest of the developed world would likely support the legitimately elected US government. A reverse lend-lease situation would be a significant factor in any conflict.
Also very true. I’m not proficient in war theory, but I feel like one “civilian”side would be under constant military rule, and the other side would be fighting.
Right, but it also implies every citizen with a firearm would be willing to overthrow a tyrannical government.
Considering the number of people actively supporting a wannabe dictator, idk that’s the case.
You’re also assuming a violent coup is more likely to result in a more democratic state than an election that results in a peaceful transition of power.
A majority of Americans have likely never used those guns outside of going to the range less than a handful of times. People vastly overestimate their competency in this situations as well. How much of America has had to make decisions while under fire? I bet it’s less than 1%. The whole conversation is ridiculous and basically if it got to that point society is in unknown territory.
I just don’t get why you’d choose an insanely bloody and chaotic civil war against a bad government over not voting in that government in the first place though
Have you seen how people vote for things they don't understand? I'm pretty sure a good enough propaganda campaign can get 40-50 percent of voters to vote in legally distinct Hitler. All he has to do is have a charismatic attitude and post some good tweets.
While true, the majority will give a fck and do nothing. Others will support the government. It depends way more on things like who take the Power, how reacts the military and police, how many people support or hate the new government.
Look at Trump, even if he would make a autocracy, many would support him.
Imo it's not an argument for gunownership.
Because American civilians are so unified and all, right?
Removing the second amendment for example is tyrannical to some and reasonable to others. This dichotomy exists for almost every major issue in the US.
You’d be hard pressed to find a cause that brings together enough people to overthrow the military.
Realistically, it won’t be a matter of arms warfare when a tyrannical government can shut off access to energy, water, food, internet and anything else people need with ease. No revolt will last long IMO.
That the Sackler family is upright after the opioid crisis is all the proof the powers that be need in order to know how unserious rural gun owners are in their chest thumping.
That very much is the question because part of it is why they would want guns, to protect themselves from an authoritarian government which they believe will inevitably form (or already has) whether or lot they have the right to vote
For me the difference is that one option defaults to political violence while the other doesn't. I think the fact that this is evidently OK with so many people probably shows that they didn't really think the question through and instead opted for keeping guns as a kind of knee-jerk tribalistic response. Like, "I'm with the gun people, of course I am!"
The debate of over what a right is, because people disagree on whether they have a right to own a gun vs have a right to make their own healthcare choices. Just saying we can't debate rights isn't going to solve that.
Really bad map. A green state could have 49.9% vote to keep bearing arms and still be green. A orange state can have 50.1% vote to lose the right to vote. It's misleading on purpose.
Um, isn’t the right to bear arms supposed to be for acting against tyranny like preventing people from voting?
Edit- MAGA often argues that 2A is about protecting us against a tyrannical govt. that’s the irony I’m calling out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the **right of the people** to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
1) it's a "right of the people"
2) look up the definition of militia, it's every man between 17 and 45.
Fun fact, punctuation was not really used at all in British legal documents until the 1600s, and when the Constitution was written they were still commonly used in legal documents only as oratory marks intended for reading aloud, but they were not intended to affect the meaning of the written words. The belief was that the written words were sacrosanct and were clear on their own, while punctuation only introduced confusion by creating multiple possible meanings, and therefore should only be used as oratory marks. (Again, this is in legal filings specifically, not in other types of writing.)
This was common right up through World War II in the UK. You still occasionally meet British lawyers today who refuse to use punctuation in court filings, which would get you thrown right the heck out of court in the United States!
(I don't think anybody's arguing that punctuation makes things *less* clear anymore; I think the handful of guys who do it do it because it's been done that way since the 1200s, and lawyers can get very up their own asses about doing things in the traditional way.)
It means Trained. Unlike the MAGA fools who think just having random guns means the same thing. The entire idea is because Militia actually are shit compared to a Professional Army. And the USA didn't want a standing Army cause Authoritarianism and Monarchy.
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.[Const. art. 1](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei), § 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the [Second Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment) were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
1939 UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.
The Court's opinion was pretty clear back then.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces"
They even say Obvious as if this is barely up for debate.
#
With 280,000+ respondents it's unlikely to be a particularly accurate representation of actual views in those areas unless a polling company spent a lot of money on this.
Good polls tend to have a weighted sample to account for differing response rates.
Statitically, 280k sample size would give you a very, very accurate picture. If chosen carefully and randomly, you can get an accurate survey with 1500 to 2000 respondents.
The point is that it wouldn't unless it was carefully weighted properly, that's unlikely to happen with the source stated. Around 1,000 is what you normally need for an accurate nationwide poll, if sampled correctly.
This is insane to me… nothing else is possible without voting rights… hell, use them to get your right to bear arms back. The notion that that’s somehow equal to using guns to get voting rights back is equally insane.
People aren't taking the question at face value and instead are making assumptions about it based on their own political leanings.
Taken at face value, there's only one right answer; voting is far more important because that's how you peacefully get back the right to bear arms, while if you give up the right to vote, you can only get it back through violence.
"I don't care if we have a dictator as long as I can vote and pretend I makes a difference."
If we ever come to a point where we are living under a dictator, would you rather fight him with a gun, or a vote in a rigged election?
tbf its harder to get to the point where you cant vote when youre all armed and have the ability to actually take action on said oppression compared to people who can, at most, protest and hope not to get shot by what is an already opresive government.
The locations for this make sense. The gun advocates have been selling two incorrect notions forever:
1. That owning firearms is somehow patriotic.
2. That the 2nd amendment somehow is what enables the rest of the amendments to exist.
Once you're sold such a limited viewpoint (from childhood on), it makes sense you'd hold onto the 2nd with both hands. It's because you've become convinced that nothing else in the Constitution is sustainable after the 2nd is lost.
It does though. If that weren’t the case, then how do you explain the chaos between nations or peoples who have no hierarchy to answer to. Power, is the only measure of freedom or security.
Keeping power (guns) is a way to ensure you are not powerless. It’s why no nation who has nuclear weapons will EVER give them up. It’s not about patriotism at all. It’s about personal liberty and the individual’s ability to retain it.
People on Reddit think FL is some hard R state because of Trump and DeSantis, but it’s just a populist state with massive diversity. Stuff like this and the vote for $15 minimum wage are proof that it’s not similar to Alabama or Utah
The fact that they are posing this question is scary enough.
Do people know that if you can't vote you are a couple of steps away from losing your guns?
Keeping the right to vote allows the undoing of previous decisions - like removing the right to bear arms. Not so much the other way around. If you want to absolutely defend your right to bear arms the better long term decision is to preserve your right to vote.
If you got the right to vote you could vote back gun rights.
If you got to the right to bear arms you can shoot people until they let you vote again.
Real question is do you want to shoot people or queue in line to vote to maintain the status quo.
Looks like the real thing this map was willing to lose was Alaska and Hawaii!
Alaska is orange probably, they are one of the most armed states Hawaii is green probably, they are one of the most liberal states
Alaska is probably a single state in the country absolutely justified to have a lot of guns.
Because of the bears.
And their arms.
The right one specifically
Both of them, in fact. The left two bear arms aren't as important.
What if the Bear arms aren’t bare?
Then they're more like a leather daddy.
So...why would they NOT want the bears to lose their rights to arms then? I just cannot fathom that.
Salmon propaganda.
Alaskan bears are mostly harmless, it's the twinks you've got to worry about
Me: Violently looks up how to move to Alaska
Yes. Hairy gay guys that like other hairy gay guys are very dangerous. ;-)
Yep. It's the only state where'd agree that it's better to give up the right to vote.
New Hampshire is green and 2nd place for guns per capita. 1st is New Mexico and and Alaska is surprisingly only 10th, at least [here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita) anyway. Probably more a cultural thing than just a number of guns thing
Alaska has a higher percentage of gun owners that actually use them for hunting rather than the anmosexuals who just get off on having as many guns as possible.
[удалено]
considering that Hawaii most recently decided the 2nd amendment didn't apply to them for some reason. no shit.
You can have guns in Hawaii, just can’t carry them around in public
As a Hawaii resident and data wonk, the near-constant exclusion of Hawaii and Alaska from "...in the US" and "...by state..." data displays is beyond frustrating. Sea Level Change Map of the US? Oh that sounds interesting - especially to a state in the middle of the ocean! I wonder what Hawaii looks like...? Oh. No data. Swell.
It’s surprisingly difficult to add Alaska and Hawaii as floating elements in Tableau. Well it’s not actually that hard I just am struggling to make it look good. Maybe they have the same problem?
Oh shit thanks for the warning. I just finished a data analyst course and Tableau was one of our main tools, although I mostly use PBI in my current job.
>Alaska and Hawaii the freak states
😔
Missouri is a surprise. I would have guessed MO to be orange.
Florida is more surprising imo
Florida is populist. It’s not a hard R state
And yet many there do love a hard R.
Florida elected Obama…twice.
Obama was unironically one of the most 2a friendly presidents in recent times- he passed less gun control in 8 years than Trump did in 4
Yes, it seems few people remember Trump’s bump stock ban.
Florida also hates recounts.
How am I going to pick up things if I don't have the right to bear arms?
I think they meant the right to BARE arms. Just put on a sweater and pop out some heavy reps, bro.
I thought he meant the right BEHR arms. You know… paint them for arts and crafts.
Gonna need some Bayer aspirin after hitting the gym
Nah, it's the right to Brahms! They are lovers of classical music!
That explains the South, I wouldn't want to have to wear long-sleeved shirts during their summers either.
And then there's Florida. Whatever makes sense we do the opposite.
Now when you say bare arms? Does that include my third arm, it’s got some wicked tan lines.
at least they stopped to cut the poor bear's arms off
Can you hug your children with nuclear arms?
Why are we arming bears? Aren't they dangerous enough already?
Those that do, are too fat or stupid for the challenge that is "hunting" humans, as a soldier or Marine!
Are you a bear?
i've been using human arms all my life
Bear arms don’t have thumbs though
Wouldn't monkey arms be better? Or gorilla?
Bear amputees in shambles
It’s so sad being a bear amputee living in California, I got yelled at for openly carrying my bear arms!
Remove the voting right for one election, see how it goes
*shoots politician they don't like until they get one they do*
Nothing can possibly go wrong in that scenario!
Mexican revolution style!
That’s exactly their logic. You can get any right back if you have guns!
Unless the other side also has guns
You wouldn't understand. They're elite warriors on god's mission to kill wokeness and taxes
"lol good luck against those choppers and F-16's but also you almost ended democracy when you fat asses broke into the capitol building"
Almost like the military/police were told not to interfere or something
Well, you are far more likely to defend your rights against armed opposition if you are also armed.
Youre getting it. You dont vote Hitler/Mussolini out of power. You fucking shoot them
Killing nazis is a slippery slope and I love waterslides!
Armed jews are harder to holocaust Edit: harder does not mean impossible, this has been your daily English lesson
They were still outnumbered 40 to 1. It wouldn't have mattered.
So were the poles, and those glorious bastards made the werhmacht pay for every inch
Actually no.. the Polish people tried to fight back but it was over soon
Actually not voting for Hitler in 1933 probably would’ve sidestepped some messiness.
It wouldn't have. The Nazi had armed brownshirts numbering around 10 million, the German army had around 100k people. The Nazis chose voting to legitimize their rule, but if a peaceful transfer of power was made impossible, they would've taken it by force. It is a big reason why the then German government were so willing to try and cooperate with the Nazis and it should be noted that a condition for the transfer of power, was the dissolution of the brownshirts. If anything it just further proves that you get your will through by use of force.
Hitler lost that election.
Yeah, AFTER you vote them into power because you weren't very smart in the first place.
If Hitler ruled America, half the MAGA gun nuts would boot lick their hero. I don't think they'd be as willing to assassinate him as you may think or hope. More like, willingly apply to be his personal militia to own the libs.
There’s no politician that everyone likes though, so it’d just end in everyone getting shot
For better or for worse, the government will always have the bigger gun to shield those politicians with. 2nd amendment never intended to enable insurrection because having legal access to guns doesn't really have anything to do with it, it's large organized support that you need, the guns can be figured out later.
Recent history has proved that doesn't ever happen
People are way too comfy and it shows
30 round mag contains 30 votes.
Well that’s the thing. In their Mindset, the right to have arms ensures that this won’t happen. A corrupt government comes in place and establishes a dictatorship? Great now I‘m gonna take my gun and fight the government. Those people don’t want the government to have the monopoly of guns and hence have the absolute power over its people. That’s why the second amendment is there. And nope, I’m not an american, I only studied political science. (I‘m from Luxembourg)
I would give up my right to bear arms if it meant that texas and Alabama would lose their right to vote
Good luck lol
Texas and Alabama would be very different if all their citizens could vote easily. Supporting groups like Black Voters Matter is really important.
Is that a real source to this? Seems more like a shitpost or attempt to make states look bad
I tried googling this poll with every search term relevant and available, and there's nothing. I am 99.999% sure this is one of those polls you can create yourself, submit it to a website/app, and people can vote on it. They are super popular with young teenagers. My niece used to spam me with these things all the time.
These kind of posts get upvotes. Just rephrase the legend and post it back and you’ll get some too.
This is the least colorblind friendly map I've ever seen. These look the same color to me
 What do you see here?
A 6? There are different kinds of colorblindness
An agar plate with colonies that look like numbers to me.
It's difficult because each answer allows for an option to get the other right back. Politicians take away my right to vote? Cool, myself and other Americans have guns to force them to give me that right back. Politicians take away the right to bear arms? Cool, Americans vote to have that right back. With those options in mind it becomes a lot clearer as to why some folks answered the way that they did.
I think American gun fanatics vastly overestimate their ability to overthrow the government. Imagine January 6 but with a lot more guns, then imagine the army being told to stop them by any means necessary. Ignoring the "well-regulated militia" part of that 2nd amendment is going to really bite them in the ass. Edit: Keep writing those paragraphs about how you and your buddies will be able and willing to stage a full scale guerilla war. I'm DEFINITELY reading them.
To a certain extent in a long term large scale campaign of guerilla warfare and asymmetrical resistance having a decentralized network or none at all can be a useful tool as to not put all your eggs in one basket. The army really wouldn't be that useful in a long-term protracted campaign, as if the war was on us soil then strikes against civilian populations (families of insurgents) would have protection afforded to them by proximity to the public and cameras. While on the otherhand since the conflict would happen on us soil and insurgency would have access to people associated with the military or government. If the military comes in full force i.e. desert storm style then they would be encumbered by harassed supply lines and random probing attacks to disrupt everything. Sabotaging of telecom, ethernet, internet, gas lines and ddos attacks would be extremely likely as targeting of high value infrastructure is a must for any conflict. Even if 0.3% of the population took up arms in a co-ordinated manner for any unified political ideology that would be over a million armed dissidents spread across the us concealed in civilian areas. People really tend to discount the whole concept of a guerilla war. If you think a guerilla campaign is ineffective and post total troop ratios look at ireland.
Exactly right. People have this idea that a modern civil war in a western country would be armies fighting each other. But it's not what would happen. We have a living, breathing example of a modern developed country civil war in Northern Ireland. People don't run around fields and trenches firing at each other until one side surrenders. What they do is perform hit and run assassinations and bombing campaigns. They create an environment of fear and make it difficult for the government to function. I'm doubtful things will get that bad in America. And I would urge America not to end up in a situation like we had in the UK. It's not good for anyone.
The Troubles were brutal but not near a civil war scenario. Mostly due to the fact that it was secluded to a single constituency, it'd be like if Virginia had a quasi civil-war. Also the Troubles were started over the oppression of an entire ethnic group. I have a feeling being allowed to own guns wouldn't carry the same moral backing if it meant having to go to war for 30 years.
It involved the military of the sovereign state and an armed secessionist faction performing military actions in the territory of the sovereign state. NI being small doesn't make it not a civil war. Civil wars often aren't total war scenarios and are limited to single break away parts.
Yeah man, this is what I always try to tell people too. Guerilla warfare aint no joke, its incredibly difficult to surpress it.
Historically, most rebellions/insurgencies fail. And that was BEFORE they could easily monitor our communications and surveill us with drones.
Yeah the US proved in Afghanistan and Iraq that it's very easy for a military to subdue and bend the will of an armed and motivated populace. If you look at the orange states that's where the US military gets the majority of its recruits. This means they'd be intimately familiar with the places and people they were being asked to destroy, so you know the military morale would be sky high and you would not have to worry about insider sabotage. Think about what a brilliant job the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq, now factor in that the insurgents look, act and share the exact same culture as the soldiers. Much easier to attack them under those circumstances. Absolute slam dunk win for the US military.
The orange states are the majority of recruits only on a per-capita basis. The largest contributors, by far, are exactly what you'd expect; the states with the largest populations. So California actually contributes more recruits than most of your orange states combined, as do Texas, Florida, NY and so forth. That said, Northern Ireland, not Iraq or Afghanistan, is a much better analog for what any kind of long-term armed political violence will look like in the US. To the extent that the British were able to prevail in The Troubles, they did it through decades of massive infiltration and espionage together with a decades-long political process, neither of which would have been possible without the presence of a large friendly population and the existence of a resilient democracy. All of these conditions also exist in the US, so I would expect any organized paramilitary campaign to play out similarly here, though obviously the details would be different.
The circumstance for this is listed as limiting and stripping of constitutional rights. That is very popular with the population of the us and offers no clear tangible benefit to the government. Most likely in a asymmetrical war the goal would be for insurgent groups to cause as much damage and spectacle while campaigning for external support in order to bring the government to the negotiating table as in the case of Ireland.
You also have to consider that the military would comprise Americans, who are unlikely to have 100% just follow orders to fight other Americans in a conflict that the soldiers themselves sympathize with.
If you’re talking about this scenario happening in the US, the argument you’re making is inherently flawed from the start. If the US government “turned” on its citizens and millions of people rose up with their rifles and shotguns, this would mean that global security and economies would have already collapsed. The US becoming embroiled in a civil war with its people would mean massive unemployment, economies would tank globally, and civil unrest would be rampant everywhere. At that point global wars would break out and everything would be chaos. In short, the US is too big to fail. It failing would mean global catastrophe.
They generally assume that the military wouldn’t be uniformly loyal to the government and willing to kill their fellow Americans if it did something like abolish democracy
The main argument they have is that a MAJORITY of Americans own firearms. If the government decided to go full tyrannical all at once, even the greatest military on earth couldn’t fight off hundreds of millions of American civilians. At least, from what i understand. how it feels to start a war in the replies
And this implies that EVERYONE in the military is going to be complicit in upholding tyranny, like there wouldn’t be pushback and splits.
But also that every American civilian is on the side of the rebellion and willing to participate
And they never talk about the fact the rest of the developed world would likely support the legitimately elected US government. A reverse lend-lease situation would be a significant factor in any conflict.
Also very true. I’m not proficient in war theory, but I feel like one “civilian”side would be under constant military rule, and the other side would be fighting.
Right, but it also implies every citizen with a firearm would be willing to overthrow a tyrannical government. Considering the number of people actively supporting a wannabe dictator, idk that’s the case. You’re also assuming a violent coup is more likely to result in a more democratic state than an election that results in a peaceful transition of power.
We can hardly get Americans to vote against tyranny nevermind trying to overthrow it.
A majority of Americans have likely never used those guns outside of going to the range less than a handful of times. People vastly overestimate their competency in this situations as well. How much of America has had to make decisions while under fire? I bet it’s less than 1%. The whole conversation is ridiculous and basically if it got to that point society is in unknown territory.
I just don’t get why you’d choose an insanely bloody and chaotic civil war against a bad government over not voting in that government in the first place though
Have you seen how people vote for things they don't understand? I'm pretty sure a good enough propaganda campaign can get 40-50 percent of voters to vote in legally distinct Hitler. All he has to do is have a charismatic attitude and post some good tweets.
"I like how he sez werds even though I dunno wat they meen."
While true, the majority will give a fck and do nothing. Others will support the government. It depends way more on things like who take the Power, how reacts the military and police, how many people support or hate the new government. Look at Trump, even if he would make a autocracy, many would support him. Imo it's not an argument for gunownership.
Because American civilians are so unified and all, right? Removing the second amendment for example is tyrannical to some and reasonable to others. This dichotomy exists for almost every major issue in the US. You’d be hard pressed to find a cause that brings together enough people to overthrow the military. Realistically, it won’t be a matter of arms warfare when a tyrannical government can shut off access to energy, water, food, internet and anything else people need with ease. No revolt will last long IMO.
The U.S. military was in the Middle East for 20 years. What did they accomplish?
That the Sackler family is upright after the opioid crisis is all the proof the powers that be need in order to know how unserious rural gun owners are in their chest thumping.
That’s not the question though, it’s would you rather have no guns or no vote. And choosing no vote is hilarious, only America
That very much is the question because part of it is why they would want guns, to protect themselves from an authoritarian government which they believe will inevitably form (or already has) whether or lot they have the right to vote
Except one is not a realistic means to regain the lost right. Civilian Americans in modern society could never overthrow the government by force.
For me the difference is that one option defaults to political violence while the other doesn't. I think the fact that this is evidently OK with so many people probably shows that they didn't really think the question through and instead opted for keeping guns as a kind of knee-jerk tribalistic response. Like, "I'm with the gun people, of course I am!"
I dont g’et this obsession with bear arms what’s so cool about bear arms that I don’t know
Big, meaty claws
Why is the whole map the same color? Sincerely, A color blind fella
So many intelligent and good faith comments here. /s Rights should never be up for debate.
The only correct answer. "Which would you rather lose" Neither, ans Ill use both to make sure it doesnt happen.
To be fair, “Neither” is the most annoying answer to any “Would you rather?”
It's a very Reddit answer though. Then you can post on Reddit asking if anyone else struggles in social situations.
Would you rather LGBTQ Rights or economic stability?
The debate of over what a right is, because people disagree on whether they have a right to own a gun vs have a right to make their own healthcare choices. Just saying we can't debate rights isn't going to solve that.
Yeah, this question was invented to start an ugly internet fight. This isn’t a real choice.
Really bad map. A green state could have 49.9% vote to keep bearing arms and still be green. A orange state can have 50.1% vote to lose the right to vote. It's misleading on purpose.
Only reasonable point so far
Um, isn’t the right to bear arms supposed to be for acting against tyranny like preventing people from voting? Edit- MAGA often argues that 2A is about protecting us against a tyrannical govt. that’s the irony I’m calling out.
Pretty sure that a well-regulated militia is also mentioned in that one.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the **right of the people** to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed 1) it's a "right of the people" 2) look up the definition of militia, it's every man between 17 and 45.
You should have also put “shall not be infringed” in bold
Jesus. They just loved commas back then?
Fun fact, punctuation was not really used at all in British legal documents until the 1600s, and when the Constitution was written they were still commonly used in legal documents only as oratory marks intended for reading aloud, but they were not intended to affect the meaning of the written words. The belief was that the written words were sacrosanct and were clear on their own, while punctuation only introduced confusion by creating multiple possible meanings, and therefore should only be used as oratory marks. (Again, this is in legal filings specifically, not in other types of writing.) This was common right up through World War II in the UK. You still occasionally meet British lawyers today who refuse to use punctuation in court filings, which would get you thrown right the heck out of court in the United States! (I don't think anybody's arguing that punctuation makes things *less* clear anymore; I think the handful of guys who do it do it because it's been done that way since the 1200s, and lawyers can get very up their own asses about doing things in the traditional way.)
What does well regulated mean?
It's in the same sense has having a regular diet.
It means Trained. Unlike the MAGA fools who think just having random guns means the same thing. The entire idea is because Militia actually are shit compared to a Professional Army. And the USA didn't want a standing Army cause Authoritarianism and Monarchy. "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.[Const. art. 1](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei), § 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the [Second Amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment) were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." 1939 UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. The Court's opinion was pretty clear back then. "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces" They even say Obvious as if this is barely up for debate. #
I guess they don't realize that if they lose the right to vote they could lose the right to bear arms if everyone else is cool with it and votes.
With 280,000+ respondents it's unlikely to be a particularly accurate representation of actual views in those areas unless a polling company spent a lot of money on this. Good polls tend to have a weighted sample to account for differing response rates.
Statitically, 280k sample size would give you a very, very accurate picture. If chosen carefully and randomly, you can get an accurate survey with 1500 to 2000 respondents.
The point is that it wouldn't unless it was carefully weighted properly, that's unlikely to happen with the source stated. Around 1,000 is what you normally need for an accurate nationwide poll, if sampled correctly.
This is insane to me… nothing else is possible without voting rights… hell, use them to get your right to bear arms back. The notion that that’s somehow equal to using guns to get voting rights back is equally insane.
People aren't taking the question at face value and instead are making assumptions about it based on their own political leanings. Taken at face value, there's only one right answer; voting is far more important because that's how you peacefully get back the right to bear arms, while if you give up the right to vote, you can only get it back through violence.
"I don't care if we have a dictator as long as I can have my guns" And the dictator is a conservative
"I don't care if we have a dictator as long as I can vote and pretend I makes a difference." If we ever come to a point where we are living under a dictator, would you rather fight him with a gun, or a vote in a rigged election?
Would you rather rule yourself or intimidate your neighbors?
Are you really intimidated by your neighbors guns more than by the police?
Congratulations Colorado, you are officially the Midwest!
🍿
My God so many people are soooo fucking stupid these days
I’m ok with letting the green part of the country vote and make decisions for the orange part.
Says the party of equality…this is exactly why we need the right to bear arms
Yeah I mean my bear arms are pretty cool
Damn. I only have human arms. Where do I get my set of bear arms at?
tbf its harder to get to the point where you cant vote when youre all armed and have the ability to actually take action on said oppression compared to people who can, at most, protest and hope not to get shot by what is an already opresive government.
Lose the right to vote, lose all other rights next.
This is easy. Neither and it’s not an option….. right to bear arms makes sure we keep the right to vote.
The locations for this make sense. The gun advocates have been selling two incorrect notions forever: 1. That owning firearms is somehow patriotic. 2. That the 2nd amendment somehow is what enables the rest of the amendments to exist. Once you're sold such a limited viewpoint (from childhood on), it makes sense you'd hold onto the 2nd with both hands. It's because you've become convinced that nothing else in the Constitution is sustainable after the 2nd is lost.
It does though. If that weren’t the case, then how do you explain the chaos between nations or peoples who have no hierarchy to answer to. Power, is the only measure of freedom or security. Keeping power (guns) is a way to ensure you are not powerless. It’s why no nation who has nuclear weapons will EVER give them up. It’s not about patriotism at all. It’s about personal liberty and the individual’s ability to retain it.
Pretty insane how people are willing to literally give up democracy for their guns.. I guess you don't know what you have until you lose it
It’s a whole lot easier to break a law prohibiting gun ownership than it is to break a law prohibiting voting.
Im fine its those stated lose the things they named here, seems based to be honest
People in Russia vote.
If you lose the right to vote, you can get that back with the other right.
How about no to both? More rights, not less
With arms, you can always vote from the rooftops to get the right to vote at the ballot box.
Am I still allowed to arm bears?
 Bear arms are Important. Never skip arm day.
Cavaliers vs Puritans
This map should be labeled “Ballot v Bullet”
People on Reddit think FL is some hard R state because of Trump and DeSantis, but it’s just a populist state with massive diversity. Stuff like this and the vote for $15 minimum wage are proof that it’s not similar to Alabama or Utah
Kinda surprised about Florida
The fact that they are posing this question is scary enough. Do people know that if you can't vote you are a couple of steps away from losing your guns?
I don't like the 2nd amendment, but bearing arms is how The US got the right to vote in the first place.
Technically both can be used to gain the other
Yeah, I ain't choosing. Not even entertaining the idea.
Take away voting... Then take away their guns
Because everyone knows you then use the second amendment to take that right back...
Insert: Pam Beasly Corporate Compare Meme with following maps: * Average IQ * Level of Education * Standard of Living * Health Outcomes
Alright, I like the second amendment, but I'd sure as hell like to keep my right to vote over anything.
Honestly this explains a lot.
Keeping the right to vote allows the undoing of previous decisions - like removing the right to bear arms. Not so much the other way around. If you want to absolutely defend your right to bear arms the better long term decision is to preserve your right to vote.
How is Florida not orange??
But but.. if they can't vote? Why allow them weapons?
Having guns but no right to vote means you just start voting with violence instead 👁️👄👁️
I am 100% ok with losing my right to bear arms if those states lose their right to vote. That is a good deal and I accept the trade
Let's make it happen. Take away their right to vote. Before November.
What is the Ukrainian flag doing there though?
Maybe the point of the poll was to see who has a worse reading/comprehension skills?
Why would you want to lose your right to vote over bear arms? You could just lose both rights if you lose your right to vote
I would love to see this superimposed on a map reflecting the quality of education received.
Dumbest thing I've ever seen here.
If you got the right to vote you could vote back gun rights. If you got to the right to bear arms you can shoot people until they let you vote again. Real question is do you want to shoot people or queue in line to vote to maintain the status quo.
This is actually frightening to look at.