Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10983 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Mar 29, 2013, titled Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

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>

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4555 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW - ESAD.
Oh how sweet.
Bless your little heart.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4556 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cared about kids being shot, you'd offer some solutions to the problem instead of accusing those of us who do of using "guilt trips."
It is a bullshit guilt trip you are offering. Because your solutions do NOT make them safer. It does the exact opposite.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4557 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Loughner was stopped when he changed clips. Smaller magazine = fewer people shot that day.
When Lanza's rifle jammed for several seconds, six kids were able to escape. If he had to change clips more often during the less than 5 minutes he was shooting, there would have been more seconds of no shooting and more kids could have escaped.
In mass shootings, smaller capacity magazines can save lives.
And in any likely, realistic self-defense situation, you are not going to need a high capacity magazine to defend yourself.
The trade-off is reasonable. Your claim that your ability to defend yourself is limited by a smaller clip is not reasonable. Or realistic.
Loughner was stopped when his aftermarket magazine caused his gun to jam. Lanza was changing magazines before he had expended every round from them (a common move with first-person shooter video games). Cho killed more people than either one of these two with two handguns with standard magazines that he purchased legally AFTER passing two background checks. So basically, your argument is nothing but BS.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4559 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I have no idea who your "Dave" is...
Just an FYI...Dave Quammen's alias is "GunShow1".

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4560 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I see you've given up even trying to debate the issues anymore.

I don't blame you. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4561 Jun 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a bullshit guilt trip you are offering. Because your solutions do NOT make them safer. It does the exact opposite.
The solutions I've suggested here are armed guards in schools and smaller magazines. How does that make kids in schools less safe?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4562 Jun 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Loughner was stopped when his aftermarket magazine caused his gun to jam. Lanza was changing magazines before he had expended every round from them (a common move with first-person shooter video games). Cho killed more people than either one of these two with two handguns with standard magazines that he purchased legally AFTER passing two background checks. So basically, your argument is nothing but BS.
And if Loughner's aftermarket magazine held 7 or 10 rounds instead of 30, there would have been fewer people shot. Period.

But you're more interested in preventing solutions than finding any, aren't you? Evidently you're just fine with 33,000 fellow Americans being killed with guns every year.

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
News Should they teach this in schools? Aug 14 okimar 3
News FPC Vows Legal Action on Approved California As... Aug 4 jimwildrickjr 1
News WVa AG: Manchin Should Resign Dem Leadership Role Aug 4 JohnInLa 3
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 31 Red Crosse 185
History of the .233 Remington Jul 31 SummerBB8 1
News Heidi Harris: CCW's On The Rise Jul 29 Get Out 2
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Jul 25 Been There Done That 4
More from around the web