Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion 11,004

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Full Story

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4533 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So then only those couple thousand folks without any sense showed up armed, and no one was hurt.
So much for your statistics.
"There are two kinds of statistics.
Lies, and damn lies."
Mark Twain
Those with dissenting views stayed away. That way no short-tempered gunner was tempted to do anything rash.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4534 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
How in the world, pray tell, can one "distort" a verbatim, stand alone quote?
By only quoting part of it and changing its meaning. Surely you are smart enough to figure that out. Hell, you DID it. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4535 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the hell would I want to look at my own post to determine what the hell you mean in one of your posts?
You're losing it now kid.
The post of mine I was referring to wasn't numbered yet, so I used the next number. Evidently your posts showed up after I posted that.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4536 Jun 18, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
You actually consider what you type out here an actual good response? Seriously, you've proven to be one heck of a useless, waste of cyber space.
Why don't you go to a forum and topic which you can actually win the debate in or, at least, contribute something of worth.
I'd say we should start just ignoring these people, guys; they're really not worth any more of our keystrokes.
I know, it's hard to ignore such idiocy because you think, at first, they might be genuine but, I'm sorry, very few can be this clueless and ignorant. They must be trolling.
I second the motion.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4537 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So, now an assumption is a strawman argument.
Well, I guess you have no intention of explaining just how you came to think that limiting the ability of your fellow citizen's ability to defend themselves is reasonable.
I guess it is also useless to ask you to explain what purpose a background check is to serve.
You're in the wrong league here kid. The intramural scrimmages are down the hall, thataway > and then to the left. Go thataway> then thataway^ then thataway< and you're there.
K.
Your assumption that I want to limit anyone's ability to defend themselves is a strawman argument. That's not an argument that I'm making - it's one you've made up instead.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4538 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
<chuckle>
I knew something was missing. I thought it was missing upstairs tho.
Grow up. Don't respond to obvious trolls.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4539 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Those with dissenting views stayed away. That way no short-tempered gunner was tempted to do anything rash.
I see.
So, according to yourself, your views are so radical in this country that you fear someone may shoot your dumb ass for having them.
Interesting.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4540 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So, let me get this straight.
You claim that armed guards can protect those kids. OK. I agree.
However, you then claim that the armed guard must be limited in how many rounds he can have in his weapon. You claim that the best time to stop a shooter is to wait until he has emptied his weapon and needs to reload. You also say that making sure (although you have no idea of how to make sure) the shooter has a small capacity magazine, will enable the armed guard to stop the shooter sooner rather than later. You additionally say that it is OK to assume that a mass shooting will always be only one shooter. You then go on to claim that this is all reasonable.
LMAO! I never said ANY of those things.

Nothing like those strawman arguments you love so much. You can always defeat them.

Too bad you can't argue with what I ACTUALLY say. LOL!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4541 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The post of mine I was referring to wasn't numbered yet, so I used the next number. Evidently your posts showed up after I posted that.
Damn kid, you used logic and reason to arrive at that conclusion.
Holy crap, will wonders never cease.
BTW, the conclusion is not neccessarily supported by the facts presented. It could very well have been the exact opposite of your conclusion.
You still need work, but you're trying. I'll grant you that.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4542 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assumption that I want to limit anyone's ability to defend themselves is a strawman argument. That's not an argument that I'm making - it's one you've made up instead.
Incorrect. There is no strawman here.
The problem here is that you fail to see the fallacy of your own argument.
Limiting the amount of ammo one can have IN their weapon, IS, in fact, LIMITING their ability to defend themselves.
You wish to avoid limiting ... by limiting. See the problem?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4543 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! I never said ANY of those things.
Nothing like those strawman arguments you love so much. You can always defeat them.
Too bad you can't argue with what I ACTUALLY say. LOL!
It is absolutely fascinating. You defeat your OWN arguments.

You DID say that it is "reasonable" to LIMIT the amount of ammo one can have IN their weapon. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

You DID say that "armed guards" should be in the schools to protect the kids. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

You DID say that 2 shooters were stopped before they could shoot more kids because they had to reload or their weapon jammed. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

You DID say that background checks will stop folks from getting their guns legally. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

You DID say that it was "realistic" to assume that ONLY a small magazine would be sufficient to defend oneself in a "real life self defense" situation. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

You DID NOT say HOW a background check will stop anyone who ALREADY gets their weapons on the black market, from having LARGE CAPACITY magazines or firearms. Correct? Yes, that is correct.

I DID say, that I, have a better idea than your nonsensical blather.
I DID ask you how many kids would be saved if an armed guard just shot the bastard DEAD IMMEDIATELY when the shooter first pulls his weapon.
You refuse to answer.

NOW.
GFY ... KID. Do it in your own straw.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4544 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Grow up. Don't respond to obvious trolls.
Good idea.
See ya around, if you ever find your way out of your own damn straw pile.
<smile>

P.S. The intramural scrimmages are being held down the hall. Third reich URL on the left. Go <thataway. Ask the hall monitor to guide you if you get scared of all the bogey men with their legally obtained limited weapons.
bobby6464

Portland, OR

#4545 Jun 18, 2013
Ha ha ha ha these tea bag ha ha ha tea bag moron dreams. I may not vote in the mid terms with this racial hating tea bag B.S ha ha ha ha what a grip of dumb asses

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4547 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So, according to yourself, your views are so radical in this country that you fear someone may shoot your dumb ass for having them.
Interesting.
No, what I'm saying is that in my experience, you gunners don't have well-controlled tempers and often violently lash out whenever someone disagrees with your extremist ideology. I've often been threatened here for simply stating a dissenting point of view. I have no doubt that Dave Quammen would take a shot at me if we met in real life. He's said as much.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4548 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn kid, you used logic and reason to arrive at that conclusion.
Holy crap, will wonders never cease.
BTW, the conclusion is not neccessarily supported by the facts presented. It could very well have been the exact opposite of your conclusion.
You still need work, but you're trying. I'll grant you that.
Sorry, you're speaking gibberish. There is no "opposite" of choosing the next number in the sequence.

Logical reasoning just isn't your thing, is it?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4549 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. There is no strawman here.
The problem here is that you fail to see the fallacy of your own argument.
Limiting the amount of ammo one can have IN their weapon, IS, in fact, LIMITING their ability to defend themselves.
You wish to avoid limiting ... by limiting. See the problem?
I've already fully addressed this. Mindlessly repeating yourself doesn't advance your case.

You still need work, but you're trying. I'll grant you that.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4550 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It is absolutely fascinating. You defeat your OWN arguments.
You DID say that it is "reasonable" to LIMIT the amount of ammo one can have IN their weapon. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that "armed guards" should be in the schools to protect the kids. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that 2 shooters were stopped before they could shoot more kids because they had to reload or their weapon jammed. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that background checks will stop folks from getting their guns legally. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that it was "realistic" to assume that ONLY a small magazine would be sufficient to defend oneself in a "real life self defense" situation. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID NOT say HOW a background check will stop anyone who ALREADY gets their weapons on the black market, from having LARGE CAPACITY magazines or firearms. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
I DID say, that I, have a better idea than your nonsensical blather.
I DID ask you how many kids would be saved if an armed guard just shot the bastard DEAD IMMEDIATELY when the shooter first pulls his weapon.
You refuse to answer.
NOW.
GFY ... KID. Do it in your own straw.
Ooooh, for a second there I thought you were going to make a logical argument. But after your third statement you went right off the rails and back into your fabricated arguments again.

As always, you'd rather argue with what you imagine I believe rather than what I actually say. That says a lot about the strength of your argument, doesn't it? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4551 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It is absolutely fascinating. You defeat your OWN arguments.
You DID say that it is "reasonable" to LIMIT the amount of ammo one can have IN their weapon. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that "armed guards" should be in the schools to protect the kids. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that 2 shooters were stopped before they could shoot more kids because they had to reload or their weapon jammed. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that background checks will stop folks from getting their guns legally. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID say that it was "realistic" to assume that ONLY a small magazine would be sufficient to defend oneself in a "real life self defense" situation. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
You DID NOT say HOW a background check will stop anyone who ALREADY gets their weapons on the black market, from having LARGE CAPACITY magazines or firearms. Correct? Yes, that is correct.
I DID say, that I, have a better idea than your nonsensical blather.
I DID ask you how many kids would be saved if an armed guard just shot the bastard DEAD IMMEDIATELY when the shooter first pulls his weapon.
You refuse to answer.
NOW.
GFY ... KID. Do it in your own straw.
BTW - ESAD.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4553 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what I'm saying is that in my experience, you gunners don't have well-controlled tempers and often violently lash out whenever someone disagrees with your extremist ideology. I've often been threatened here for simply stating a dissenting point of view. I have no doubt that Dave Quammen would take a shot at me if we met in real life. He's said as much.
Well, I have no idea who your "Dave" is, and do not care. That's >your< problem.

So, according to yourself, it is "extremist ideology" to believe that I have a natural born right to defend myself and no SOB, including YOU - kid, will ever tell me that my defense will be limited to YOUR liking.
Your lips - kid - right here > (_._)

BTW, you are aware, are you not, that posting someone's personal name in a slanderous way is a violation of the terms of service on this site?
If you have a problem with an individual, I suggest you take it to the authorities and refrain from committing a cyber crime of your own - kid.

Reported.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4554 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you're speaking gibberish. There is no "opposite" of choosing the next number in the sequence.
Logical reasoning just isn't your thing, is it?
What is the opposite of "after"?
Gee, kid, could it be "before"?
Why yes. Yes it is the opposite.
<rolls eyes>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama to ban AR-15 bullets 7 hr Sneaky Pete 1
Kahr PM40 problems (Apr '06) 19 hr BFMJAM63 188
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 22 hr CTM 12,176
Concealed weapons law costing Idaho colleges $3... Feb 24 Squach 25
Wisconsin CCW permit Homicide rate lower than J... Feb 22 Tory II 1
CCRKBA makes it official, backs CCW reciprocity... Feb 22 Tory II 1
Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) Feb 18 swedenforever 6
More from around the web