• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun-Rights Movement Fed America’s Insurrectionist Fever Dreams

Not shoot the 11 year old who's just looking to steal some food.

But if you really have a concern that Ninja-commandos might execute a military style assault on your house, get a shotgun.
Shotguns work and can be more lethal than an AR15. A “standard” 12 gauge load of #00 Buck contains nine pellets. Each pellet larger than a 223 REM bullet (AR15 ammo). That means 6 pulls of the trigger of a shotgun can shoot out 54 pellets. This load is the most common used to hunt deer in wooded areas. Certainly more deadly in a crowd or theater shooting than an AR15.
 
Last edited:
He is our soon to be president talking about a shot gun! :oops:


Gun Joe Biden Says No Need To Own Assault Weapons: 'Buy A Shotgun

 
Shotguns work and can be more lethal than an AR15. A “standard” 12 gauge load of #00 Buck contains nine pellets. Each pellet larger than a 223 REM bullet (AR15 ammo). That means 6 pulls of the trigger of a shotgun can shoot out 54 pellets. This load is the most common used to hunt deer in wooded areas. Certainly more deadly in a crowd or theater shooting than an AR15.

A 20 gauge "youth" model Remington is supposedly twice as powerful as a 44 Magnum revolver

A full power 12 gauge is the most lethal firearm a civilian can put in their shoulder...certainly at ranges for home defense.
 
Yes - a lot better off.

Is it your view that in a confrontation with a hostile government, the people are always better off if they are disarmed?

Or are there times when being armed is a benefit?
 
A 20 gauge "youth" model Remington is supposedly twice as powerful as a 44 Magnum revolver

A full power 12 gauge is the most lethal firearm a civilian can put in their shoulder...certainly at ranges for home defense.
My point is that trying to regulate good guns from bad is not useful. What is your point? Are you for regulating handguns only?
 
Is it your view that in a confrontation with a hostile government, the people are always better off if they are disarmed?

Or are there times when being armed is a benefit?


It is my view that people should never seek confrontation to overthrow what you call a "hostile government" - it will not end well

Dictatorships are almost never overthrown from within

Almost always a dictatorship is weakened by external factors or the intervention of other countries, like the US invasion of Iraq causing Saddam's downfall.
 
It is my view that people should never seek confrontation to overthrow what you call a "hostile government" - it will not end well

Dictatorships are almost never overthrown from within

Almost always a dictatorship is weakened by external factors or the intervention of other countries, like the US invasion of Iraq causing Saddam's downfall.
And when all the governments are dictatorships and their populations disarmed? You forget about our own revolution.
 
My point is that trying to regulate good guns from bad is not useful. What is your point? Are you for regulating handguns only?

No, I have repeatedly listed those weapons I would exempt from a gun ban, I would ban all guns, then exempt

Muzzle loaders
Single shot hunting rifles
Double and single barreled shotguns
Pump/lever action shotguns with a capacity of no more than three
"Classic" firearms - ie: those built in or before 1945

And I do so by listing (for firearms built after 1945) by listing the make/serial number of all exempted guns.
 
And when all the governments are dictatorships and their populations disarmed? You forget about our own revolution.

The American Revolution wasn't against a tyranny or dictatorship. That's why it could be successful.
 
It is my view that people should never seek confrontation to overthrow what you call a "hostile government" - it will not end well

The Hong Kong protesters are not trying to overthrow the CCP.

I'm asking you if a group of people are being attacked by the government which claims to rule over them, are they ever better off armed?

I'm pretty sure (but not positive, correct me if I'm wrong) that you've said owning a gun for self-defense typically makes you worse off. I want to know if you believe the same thing regarding groups of people, instead of a single individual.
 
The Hong Kong protesters are not trying to overthrow the CCP.

The just oppose the rule of the Chinese government in Hong Kong.

I'm asking you if a group of people are being attacked by the government which claims to rule over them, are they ever better off armed?

No, they are not

I'm pretty sure (but not positive, correct me if I'm wrong) that you've said owning a gun for self-defense typically makes you worse off. I want to know if you believe the same thing regarding groups of people, instead of a single individual.

Yes it does - unless of course they have outside assistance or even an invasion from a friendly power, like the US invasion of Iraq that saw Saddam's regime overthrown.
 
No, I have repeatedly listed those weapons I would exempt from a gun ban, I would ban all guns, then exempt

Muzzle loaders
Single shot hunting rifles
Double and single barreled shotguns
Pump/lever action shotguns with a capacity of no more than three
"Classic" firearms - ie: those built in or before 1945

And I do so by listing (for firearms built after 1945) by listing the make/serial number of all exempted guns.
Would concealed carry, security, law enforcement also be restricted? Also there were assault rifles and machine pistols before 1945. The Sturmgewehr-44, or StG-44 was the first mass produced assault rifle around 1943
 
The American Revolution wasn't against a tyranny or dictatorship. That's why it could be successful.
We thought it was a tyranny, that is why we revolted.
 
Would concealed carry, security, law enforcement also be restricted? Also there were assault rifles and machine pistols before 1945. The Sturmgewehr-44, or StG-44 was the first mass produced assault rifle around 1943

Sorry, a gun ban applies only to privately owned guns

I'm aware that some PDs supply funds for officers to buy their own guns, this should stop

The StG-44 would be allowed - classics arms would be because of their high value. I opposed to something similar when UK law allowed modified pistols. The kind of person to buy and care for a classic gun is not the kind of person to abuse it
BUT if it were the case, if say M1 Garands started to be used in bank robberies or mass shootings, they could easily be removed from the exempted list

Banning handguns would seem to make concealed carry superfluous

We thought it was a tyranny, that is why we revolted.

No, the revolt was motivated by money. The middle classes saw an opportunity to make more of it through political independence
The average colonist or soldier in the Continental Army, paid no tax to the British government

Just like the Civil War, it too was motivated by money - the middle class saw the basis of their wealth/economy (ie: slavery) under threat
So they persuaded the population to rise up - the average Confederate soldier was a dirt farmer who never had any slaves.
 
No, they are not
What about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? I think they only had a few dozen rifles and pistols. They were only able to kill about 100 Nazis, and in the end, having a few dozen firearms didn't save them, although it did delay their transportation to the death camps by a few months.

If you had been there in 1943, would you have advised them not to arm themselves?
 
What about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? I think they only had a few dozen rifles and pistols. They were only able to kill about 100 Nazis, and in the end, having a few dozen firearms didn't save them, although it did delay their transportation to the death camps by a few months.

If you had been there in 1943, would you have advised them not to arm themselves?
It is interesting to see that the Nazis are again the ones loading up on arms. Obviously there is a psychological connection to explore there.
 
What about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? I think they only had a few dozen rifles and pistols. They were only able to kill about 100 Nazis, and in the end, having a few dozen firearms didn't save them, although it did delay their transportation to the death camps by a few months.

If you had been there in 1943, would you have advised them not to arm themselves?


Well that actually was in wartime, but in any case the Jews lost

As most revolts, against totalitarian regimes, do

In hindsight, they should've waited two more years.
 
Well that actually was in wartime, but in any case the Jews lost

Right, but if you had been there in 1943, would you have advised them not to arm themselves? Do you think it was a mistake for them to arm themselves and attempt to fight against the Nazi government?
 
Right, but if you had been there in 1943, would you have advised them not to arm themselves? Do you think it was a mistake for them to arm themselves and attempt to fight against the Nazi government?

No, they should've armed themselves, but chosen a later time to revolt and in actual fact a delay of just over a year would probably been sufficient.
 
No, they should've armed themselves,

Which means you do support the idea of the people using firearms to fight back against a tyrannical government - even in a hopeless situation.

but chosen a later time to revolt and in actual fact a delay of just over a year would probably been sufficient.

They couldn't wait, the Nazis were already deporting thousands of Jews per day to Treblinka:

When the deportations first began, members of the Jewish resistance movement met and decided not to fight the SS directives, believing that the Jews were being sent to labour camps and not to their deaths. But by the end of 1942, ghetto inhabitants learned that the deportations were part of an extermination process. Many of the remaining Jews decided to revolt.[14] The first armed resistance in the ghetto occurred in January 1943.[15]

On 19 April 1943, Passover eve, the Germans entered the ghetto. The remaining Jews knew that the Germans would murder them and they decided to resist to the last.
 
Back
Top Bottom