Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10952 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

#4586 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
They die from suicide dumbass. TRY to embrace THAT reality.
It is the SAME damn thing with these wacko mass shooters - HUMAN BEHAVIOR and MENTAL ILLNESS issues that need addressed - NOT whether law respecting citizens should be required to jump through hoops to excersize their natural born rights.
Wake up for cripe's sake.
You are treating the symptom on those who do not display the symptom, and not addressing the root cause in the offenders.
Because I'm advocating for restricting gun access to the mentally ill but NOT for treatment, right?

When will you begin debating what I've actually said instead of what you imagine I believe?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4587 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in order to stop those folks, who apparently wish to die, from shooting themselves, you advocate infringing upon my natural rights, and demand that I be handicapped in my own defense.
That's downright laughable, if it were not so ridiculous and sad that you fail to see the fallacy in your own logically disconnected BS.
Nope, that's not what I said.

Care to try again?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4588 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your incapacity to comprehend logic and reason doesn't make me a lying POS.
Just because Cho did it doesn't change the fact that limiting clip size would still reduce numbers of those shot in mass killings. One incident doesn't change the general rule.
The weapon suicides choose is extremely relevant. 90% of suicides are impulsive. Over 95% of suicides by gun are successful. Without access to a gun the suicide rate would decline. This is supported by massive sociological evidence. Your belief is simply false.
And I've never made the argument that low capacity clips would do anything to address suicide by gun, now have I? That's an argument YOU invented.
Can ANY gunner argue with claims people have actually made, or do you all have to create these strawman arguments?
When you present "logic", I will address it as such. Until then, I have proven to you that magazine size has NOTHING to do with the number of people killed by mass murderers, and that limiting that capacity will NOT reduce the body count. There are many more factors at play there. VA Tech is PROOF, idiot. Just because YOU don't see it as proof, doesn't negate the reality that it is.

And if 90% of those suicides are impulsive, and they can't get a gun....they will find something else to use. You will not reduce the number of successful suicides by limiting access to firearms. The total number of suicides per year is only a small fraction of those who actually try it (approx. 1 million, source: CDC.gov ). So I would be willing to bet that those who were successful really wanted to die.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4589 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I take it that "Dave" is also an alias?
I think at one time he went by "David762" or something like that.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4590 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidently you're just fine with 33,000 fellow Americans being killed with guns every year.
No.
I am fine with the near 20,000 of them that are (according to the FBI stats) one criminal shooting another ciminal. Saves the taxpayers a lot of money - except to prosecute the surviving criminal shooter.
I am fine with folks that do not wish to live when they blow their brains out. It's their life to throw if they wish. The real mind bender here is that you insist on disregarding WHY they wish to kill themselves and instead focus on HOW they kill themselves, and then commence to insist on hamstringing innocent citizens and infringing on something that neither >YOU< nor any other person or group of persons, who have NO human authority whatsoever to infringe upon, because thousands of OTHER people, disassociated from them, wish to kill themselves.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4591 Jun 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
When you present "logic", I will address it as such. Until then, I have proven to you that magazine size has NOTHING to do with the number of people killed by mass murderers, and that limiting that capacity will NOT reduce the body count. There are many more factors at play there. VA Tech is PROOF, idiot. Just because YOU don't see it as proof, doesn't negate the reality that it is.
And if 90% of those suicides are impulsive, and they can't get a gun....they will find something else to use. You will not reduce the number of successful suicides by limiting access to firearms. The total number of suicides per year is only a small fraction of those who actually try it (approx. 1 million, source: CDC.gov ). So I would be willing to bet that those who were successful really wanted to die.
You can't recognize logic when it's right in front of your face. for instance, y ou cite one instance among many as proof of your pet theory. But only one instance among many is really proof that you're wrong.

Impulsive means that they acted in the moment without forethought. By definition, they will NOT find another means since the impulse passes and they are no longer actively suicidal.

And your statistics undermine your argument and support mine - if only a small fraction of suicide attempts actually succeed and the success rate with guns is over 95%, that supports the case for addressing the means. No access to a gun = fewer successful suicides.
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#4592 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
What happens when a gunner gets spooked?
This gunner - Kansas Secretary of State - imagined shooting peaceful protesters outside his home.
----------
The secretary of state is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment -- and he said the incident at his home is an example of why Americans should bear arms.
"If we had been in the home and not been armed, I would have felt very afraid -- because it took the police 15 minutes to show up," he said. "It's important we recognize there's a reason we have the Second Amendment. There are situations like this where you have a mob and you do need to be able to protect yourself."
He said had they been home and the mob had gotten out of hand, his family would have been in "grave jeopardy."
"The Second Amendment is the private property owner's last resort," he said.
----------
Peaceful people standing in the rain, chanting and giving speeches caused this gunner to feel threatened enough to begin shooting unarmed people.
That's the gunner reaction to dissent.
And that's why sensible people stay away from armed pro-gun protesters.
What a disingenuous representation of the facts. At least your consistent.
Aphelion

Palm Bay, FL

#4593 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it would take a learning disability to swallow your bullshit argument.
LOL!
That would mean that your gulping it down.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4594 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your incapacity to comprehend logic and reason doesn't make me a lying POS.
Just because Cho did it doesn't change the fact that limiting clip size would still reduce numbers of those shot in mass killings. One incident doesn't change the general rule.
The weapon suicides choose is extremely relevant. 90% of suicides are impulsive. Over 95% of suicides by gun are successful. Without access to a gun the suicide rate would decline. This is supported by massive sociological evidence. Your belief is simply false.
And I've never made the argument that low capacity clips would do anything to address suicide by gun, now have I? That's an argument YOU invented.
Can ANY gunner argue with claims people have actually made, or do you all have to create these strawman arguments?
"Your incapacity to comprehend logic and reason doesn't make me a lying POS."
Maybe you have a shaky point there. It does not make you a lying POS. It points out however, that you yourself have no good understanding of what logic and reason actually are. If you did, we would see you actually employ it in areas other than figuring out that two posts may show up on this site in an order that you did not expect.

"Just because Cho did it doesn't change the fact that limiting clip size would still reduce numbers of those shot in mass killings."
Bullshit. Your "fact" is none other than pure opinion and disconnected "logic". You have been challanged many times here to explain just how it is possible to make people comply to your smaller clip capacity, when it has been repeatedly demonstarted to you that people who have no respect for the law, well, kid, they have no respect for the law.
It is absolutely astounding that you seem unable to grasp that simple little fact, and blow right by it and think that by you writing ANOTHER law will change that fact. ALL your propposal will do is penalize innocent people for acts THEY did NOT commit.

"And I've never made the argument that low capacity clips would do anything to address suicide by gun, now have I? That's an argument YOU invented."
Bullshit! You continually lump those suicides into your emotional diatribe, and then convienently disregard them at will later on in your BS. You make stupid open ended claims that smaller clips = less deaths, and when called on them, you pull the "strawman card" and that card is NOT in this deck.

Son, the intramural scrimmages are in the little gym down the hall. You will continually run into this self imposed impasse in your own approach to civil discourse until such time as you learn what reason, logic, and strawman arguments actually are. Until then son ... the intramural scrimmages are down the hall. You have entered your gocart in a NASCAR event. Your gocart is misfiring to boot. FIX it and then reenter.

How do I know this? I have made the same mistakes that we see you making in an endless circle. Got my ass kicked, handed to me, and nailed to the cyber wall regular too ... at first.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4595 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your incapacity to comprehend logic and reason doesn't make me a lying POS."
Maybe you have a shaky point there. It does not make you a lying POS. It points out however, that you yourself have no good understanding of what logic and reason actually are. If you did, we would see you actually employ it in areas other than figuring out that two posts may show up on this site in an order that you did not expect.
"Just because Cho did it doesn't change the fact that limiting clip size would still reduce numbers of those shot in mass killings."
Bullshit. Your "fact" is none other than pure opinion and disconnected "logic". You have been challanged many times here to explain just how it is possible to make people comply to your smaller clip capacity, when it has been repeatedly demonstarted to you that people who have no respect for the law, well, kid, they have no respect for the law.
It is absolutely astounding that you seem unable to grasp that simple little fact, and blow right by it and think that by you writing ANOTHER law will change that fact. ALL your propposal will do is penalize innocent people for acts THEY did NOT commit.
"And I've never made the argument that low capacity clips would do anything to address suicide by gun, now have I? That's an argument YOU invented."
Bullshit! You continually lump those suicides into your emotional diatribe, and then convienently disregard them at will later on in your BS. You make stupid open ended claims that smaller clips = less deaths, and when called on them, you pull the "strawman card" and that card is NOT in this deck.
Son, the intramural scrimmages are in the little gym down the hall. You will continually run into this self imposed impasse in your own approach to civil discourse until such time as you learn what reason, logic, and strawman arguments actually are. Until then son ... the intramural scrimmages are down the hall. You have entered your gocart in a NASCAR event. Your gocart is misfiring to boot. FIX it and then reenter.
How do I know this? I have made the same mistakes that we see you making in an endless circle. Got my ass kicked, handed to me, and nailed to the cyber wall regular too ... at first.
tl;dr

Get back to me when you can make your case concisely.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4596 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
And your statistics undermine your argument and support mine - if only a small fraction of suicide attempts actually succeed and the success rate with guns is over 95%, that supports the case for addressing the means. No access to a gun = fewer successful suicides.
And yet again, your misfire slows your gocart.
Look here > "No access to a gun = fewer successful suicides."
That is a disconnect in logic and reality.

HOW - repeat - HOW - repeat - HOW - repeat - HOW - in the hell is your "solution" going to make sure that EVERY SINGLE suicidal or homicidal person will be rendered incapable of finding a firearm?

Your "solution" is none other than an idealistic impossibility.
bobby6464

Portland, OR

#4597 Jun 19, 2013
What's your point cut and paste king? What's your point? Ha ha ha ha ha dumb ass

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4598 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"Your incapacity to comprehend logic and reason doesn't make me a lying POS."
Maybe you have a shaky point there. It does not make you a lying POS. It points out however, that you yourself have no good understanding of what logic and reason actually are. If you did, we would see you actually employ it in areas other than figuring out that two posts may show up on this site in an order that you did not expect.
"Just because Cho did it doesn't change the fact that limiting clip size would still reduce numbers of those shot in mass killings."
Bullshit. Your "fact" is none other than pure opinion and disconnected "logic". You have been challanged many times here to explain just how it is possible to make people comply to your smaller clip capacity, when it has been repeatedly demonstarted to you that people who have no respect for the law, well, kid, they have no respect for the law.
It is absolutely astounding that you seem unable to grasp that simple little fact, and blow right by it and think that by you writing ANOTHER law will change that fact. ALL your propposal will do is penalize innocent people for acts THEY did NOT commit.
"And I've never made the argument that low capacity clips would do anything to address suicide by gun, now have I? That's an argument YOU invented."
Bullshit! You continually lump those suicides into your emotional diatribe, and then convienently disregard them at will later on in your BS. You make stupid open ended claims that smaller clips = less deaths, and when called on them, you pull the "strawman card" and that card is NOT in this deck.
Son, the intramural scrimmages are in the little gym down the hall. You will continually run into this self imposed impasse in your own approach to civil discourse until such time as you learn what reason, logic, and strawman arguments actually are. Until then son ... the intramural scrimmages are down the hall. You have entered your gocart in a NASCAR event. Your gocart is misfiring to boot. FIX it and then reenter.
How do I know this? I have made the same mistakes that we see you making in an endless circle. Got my ass kicked, handed to me, and nailed to the cyber wall regular too ... at first.
Now ^THAT^ was an ass-whooppin'. Excellent.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4600 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
tl;dr
Get back to me when you can make your case concisely.
And ^THAT^ would be Dan-speak for "yipe-yipe-yipe-yipe ". LOL

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4601 Jun 19, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
What's your point cut and paste king? What's your point? Ha ha ha ha ha dumb ass
LMAO!!!

Right on cue, Bobby.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4603 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet again, your misfire slows your gocart.
Look here > "No access to a gun = fewer successful suicides."
That is a disconnect in logic and reality.
HOW - repeat - HOW - repeat - HOW - repeat - HOW - in the hell is your "solution" going to make sure that EVERY SINGLE suicidal or homicidal person will be rendered incapable of finding a firearm?
Your "solution" is none other than an idealistic impossibility.
Nobody is proposing any solution for EVERY SINGLE person. The goal is to reduce gun violence. Nobody claims we can absolutely eliminate it.

That's another common strawman argument from you gunners - "you can't totally eliminate gun violence." It's what you say to avoid doing ANYTHING to address the problem.
FormerParatroope r

Prairie Village, KS

#4604 Jun 19, 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.
There are those on both sides of this argument who use the internet as a place to play out dreams of Rambo. Over the years all of us have been " threatened" for our views. Experience shows that if you meet any if them they back down. It is rare that any will act upon their threats. Those are the ones who will post personal information about you, showing they are actively seeking you out. When it comes to that, you notify the FBI, local law enforcement, and prepare.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4605 Jun 19, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
There are those on both sides of this argument who use the internet as a place to play out dreams of Rambo. Over the years all of us have been " threatened" for our views. Experience shows that if you meet any if them they back down. It is rare that any will act upon their threats. Those are the ones who will post personal information about you, showing they are actively seeking you out. When it comes to that, you notify the FBI, local law enforcement, and prepare.
Dave is no threat to me. He's an internet tough-guy wannabee.

But my point is that his mindset isn't atypical. Some people lash out violently when they get frustrated or when their will is opposed. In my experience, many (if not most) of the most vocal pro-gun crowd fit that profile - certainly the ones who feel passionately enough to come out to a rally in support of nullification of a federal law that hasn't even been passed.
FormerParatroope r

Prairie Village, KS

#4606 Jun 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your incapacity to comprehend logic and reason doesn't make me a lying POS.
Just because Cho did it doesn't change the fact that limiting clip size would still reduce numbers of those shot in mass killings. One incident doesn't change the general rule.
The weapon suicides choose is extremely relevant. 90% of suicides are impulsive. Over 95% of suicides by gun are successful. Without access to a gun the suicide rate would decline. This is supported by massive sociological evidence. Your belief is simply false.
And I've never made the argument that low capacity clips would do anything to address suicide by gun, now have I? That's an argument YOU invented.
Can ANY gunner argue with claims people have actually made, or do you all have to create these strawman arguments?
Suicide will be attempted whether a firearm is there are not. Pills, hanging, carbon monoxide by automobile, intentional automobile crashes, and any other way a person can dream up can be used in the absence of a firearm.

I am curious how limiting the amount of ammunition in my magazine will make it tougher for a criminal to commit mass murder?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4607 Jun 19, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Suicide will be attempted whether a firearm is there are not. Pills, hanging, carbon monoxide by automobile, intentional automobile crashes, and any other way a person can dream up can be used in the absence of a firearm.
I am curious how limiting the amount of ammunition in my magazine will make it tougher for a criminal to commit mass murder?
What I said was that limiting the amount of ammunition in the criminal's magazine will mean he will likely kill fewer people. Newtown and Tucson showed that those few vital seconds changing clips can make a world of difference in number of lives saved.

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 Largest maker of bump stocks will stop acceptin... 3 min ardith 29
News Trump's plan will seek to 'harden' schools agai... 52 min javawhey 815
News No Way': Trump says Second Amendment won't be r... 2 hr javawhey 117
News Citizens have a right 2 hr freespeechmcgee 2
News Parkland student fills his clear backpack with ... 4 hr Boo Botz 3
News Carlsbad student plans Stand for Second walkout 23 hr Jakeco 66
News CA Now Controlled by the Vote of Illegal Aliens... Apr 19 tomin cali 1