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

#8011 Sep 27, 2013
Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?

Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy.

If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitle...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8012 Sep 27, 2013
"But Hitler and Stalin took away the guns and look what happened!"

This argument is historically inaccurate. University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explained in his 2004 paper, Weimar Germany had tougher gun laws than Nazi Germany. Hitler expanded private gun ownership.

It is true that Gypsies and Jews were not permitted to own guns, but there is no basis for the belief that these two groups would have stopped the Holocaust had they been armed. If anything, it would have "hastened their demise" according to Robert Spitzer, Chair of SUNY-Cortland's political science department. Hitler was extremely popular among the German people and throughout the world.

To suggest that the only thing keeping Hitler in power was control of guns exonerates the many who supported him. The same is true of the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia: the idea that an armed populace would have stopped Stalin is a fantasy. Like Hitler, Stalin was extremely popular.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8013 Sep 27, 2013
Militia Myths: Why Armed Populations Don’t Prevent Tyranny, But Often Lead To It

Moving to the modern era, Militias have a terrible history of creating tyranny, even when fighting against foreign powers. Militias that have been successful in warding off foreign aggression overwhelmingly opposed democratic rule.

A few examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon; in none of these countries did the militias promote a free State. Add to this list countries where militias have ripped apart society in tribal states or civil war (such as Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, and the Palestinian Territories) and we can form an even clearer picture of militias.

For a more immediate example, one only has to look at the bewildering array of militias (more than “1,000” according to Robin Wright) currently fighting in Syria to see how little they promote democratic values and how ineffective they tend to be on the battlefield. While there may be an example of victorious militias replacing tyranny with freedom since the industrial age hiding somewhere in an obscure footnote of history, the rule that militias are detrimental to preserving freedom holds.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8014 Sep 27, 2013
Stalin took the guns

The hypothesis that a heavily armed Russian population could have stopped Stalin and communist rule completely overlooks the massive civil war (1917-22) that culminated in the triumph of communist forces. Lenin and Stalin didn’t need gun control. They simply annihilated any domestic threats to their rule. As Omer Bratov, a historian from Brown University, explains about Stalin,“the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.” It also defies logic that where the military might of Nazi Germany failed, scattered bands of Russian resistance could have somehow succeeded.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8015 Sep 27, 2013
Mao took the guns

Like the Russian case, the idea that Mao’s gun control allowed him to commit genocidal acts completely overlooks how Mao gained power in the first place: a massive civil war. If guns could have stopped Mao, they would have then, not at the height of his power. It also overlooks the fact that any type of gun laws would have had only a negligible influence of gun ownership as the vast majority of Chinese peasants (those bearing the brunt of Mao’s disastrous policies) were too poor to even consider owning a gun. Gun policy shouldn’t enter any meaningful discourse on Mao’s rule.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8016 Sep 27, 2013
Guatemala took the guns

The rationale for Guatemala’s wanton slaughter of the Mayan population was to eliminate the threat of Marxist rebels by removing their support base. Guatemala’s genocidal acts were a response to an armed threat, not an opportunistic assault to take advantage of a recently disarmed population as some gun advocates suggest. The tactics to remove this armed resistance, unfortunately, involved the slaughter of unarmed civilians, and was spurred by decades (if not centuries) of pent up racial tensions. It was the presence of armed resistance, not the absence of it, which led to further atrocities.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8017 Sep 27, 2013
Idi Amin took the guns

The Ugandan case is a prime example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action. Gun advocates point to a 1970 Uganda law that restricted firearm ownership and regulated the types of weapons a citizen could own as the gateway to genocidal acts beginning in 1971 under the rule of Idi Amin. Had the population not been “disarmed,” the people of Uganda could have stopped the reign of terror. However, this analysis completely overlooks two very basic facts. First, the gun law implemented in 1970 was mostly an extension of a colonial firearms law dating back to 1955, meaning the number of gun owners would not have changed substantially. Second, the idea that the gun law was stage one of genocide is not viable, as the law was implemented in 1970 and Idi Amin did not seize power and begin killing people until 1971.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8018 Sep 27, 2013
Pol Pot took the guns

The claims of Cambodian gun control leading to genocide is, like the Uganda case, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that conveniently ignores the fact that there was a massive five year civil war from 1970-75 in which the Republican forces protecting the “one million educated people” were decisively defeated. As Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” states the idea that gun control led to genocide in Cambodia and the other countries mentioned represents “a cartoonish view of the complex events” and the people touting these ideas “don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war.”

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8019 Sep 27, 2013
The Turks took the guns

It is true that the Ottomans/Turks seized the weapons of many Armenians. But the Turkish government also took the Armenian’s right to speech, property, livelihood, etc. Anything the Turks could take, they did. Seizing their weapons was simply one of many tools used by the Turks to carry out genocide, not the cause. The idea that a better armed Armenian population would have stopped the genocide is naïve. Although some Armenians were able to hold out versus the government (with the help of the Russian military or French naval forces), most batches of armed resistance were annihilated with artillery bombardment and overwhelming military force. As the Armenian National Institute explains, while the armed resistance was noble, it was ultimately the International awareness and pressure on Turkey that saved the remnants of the Armenian population.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8020 Sep 27, 2013
Conclusion

Even if the gun advocates’ deeply flawed reading of history was accurate, applying the lessons from these countries to the US is foolish. None of the above countries had well established democratic traditions at the time. Most of these nations were suffering from battlefield defeats or economic catastrophe. In no way do these scenarios bear any resemblance to the US. Even if gun control was the gateway to genocide in these countries (which was definitively not the case), such analysis overlooks the vast host of causal socio-economic and political factors that led to these tragic events. Extrapolating these flawed conclusions to domestic gun policy, in the words of James Madison,“must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.”

Takeaways:

- Militias were largely ineffective in our own Revolutionary War.
- Militias in the modern era have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty.
- Liberty and the degree of gun ownership in a society are uncorrelated.
- Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
- Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
- Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8021 Sep 27, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to start using paragraphs.
Why do safe drivers have to follow speed limits and wear seat belts? Why do safe workers have to abide by OSHA regulations? Why do non-addicts have to have prescriptions to get the meds we need? Wouldn't it be better just to restrict and regulate unsafe people?
And have these measures ended accidents and drug overdoses? Why do we have any regulations if none of them stop all the bad things from happening?
I'm trying to illustrate the fundamental flaw at the core of your reasoning on this issue. Are you beginning to see it?
No, the fundamental flaw in reasoning is all yours my friend. Driving is a privilege as well as those other things you list........not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore it can be restricted in just about ANY way the governing powers see fit. You're comparing apples and oranges. The right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right guaranteed by the constitution and confirmed as such by the SCOTUS. Big difference. The constitution was composed to limit government, in this case to restrict government from infringing on the right of the people to be armed. Did I state that clearly enough or should I put in a new paragraph. The whole purpose of the constitution and the 2nd amendment is to restrict the government from doing what you suggest.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8022 Sep 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
A healthcare plan which people are FORCED to purchase or be FINED is a TAX, you f**king dweeb.
It isn't, you f**king dweeb.

I am "forced" to have car insurance.

How's it work for you in Virginia? I know it's still legal to poke ponies- though I expect you stick to sheep- but I bet you are "forced" to carry insurance there.

Is that a tax, Shug?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8023 Sep 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
The Nazi's relaxed gun laws to those they determined to be "trustworthy".
Which would be the 98 percent and change.

Of course, the gun gnutters insist Hitler started his rise to power with gun control in 1920 and no doubt would have taken over the world if it weren't for the Red Dawn army that rose up to save the world.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#8024 Sep 27, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you expect initial reports to be always correct and never updated as investigators find new information....while you sit in front of your boob tube, masturbating and passing judgement....bwhahahhahahahah. .....you will enjoy her tap dance when she becomes the next president.....
"I guess you expect initial reports to be always correct and never updated as investigators find new information...."

Ah..see..the key there is "reporting"...that means something verified with facts or proof...NOT making things up because "THEY" (the media) want it to be that way. It is called reporting the news...NOT "making" the news.

Maybe, just maybe...IF YOU would ask more questions instead of swallowing everything spoon feed to you (propoganda), you might be better educated instead of proving once again how ignorant you are.

"...you will enjoy her tap dance when she becomes the next president..."

ROTFLMAO...riiiight.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8026 Sep 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which would be the 98 percent and change.
Of course, the gun gnutters insist Hitler started his rise to power with gun control in 1920 and no doubt would have taken over the world if it weren't for the Red Dawn army that rose up to save the world.
Let's say you 98% is accurate (it isn't, but for the sake of the argument we'll use it). What gave him the right to disarm the other 2% and then summarily MURDER THEM????

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8027 Sep 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say you 98% is accurate
I don't care if you think it's accurate or not.

You don't have a right to your own version of facts.

PS: Sun rises in the east.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8028 Sep 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
What gave him the right to disarm the other 2% and then summarily MURDER THEM????
Do let me know when you can find where I said that Hitler had a right to murder anyone.

Or even spit on his or her shoe.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#8029 Sep 27, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
post the source of your credible information....seems I still haven't seen anything from your except
http://imageshack.us/a/img809/8122/101010taki...
That's what I thought...nothing from you to refute my earlier post...have a good day.
FormerParatroope r

Madison, AL

#8031 Sep 27, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
What the gunners consider a heroic uprising against systemic injustice in TN they also consider outrageous and illegal when the Black Panthers advocated the same thing under the same (or worse) circumstances. That's why I brought up African Americans - to expose the fundamental flaw at the center of the argument.
Like the US gun laws against former slaves and Hitler's gun laws against Jews, nations have often used discriminatory laws to oppress minority populations. That's an entirely different thing than uniform national gun regulations the don't have disparate impact and don't disarm the citizenry. The first is a tool of oppression; the second is reasonable regulation for public safety.
And all of this is just a rabbit trail to the discussion we were having - that there has never been an attempt at dictatorial national government that was averted by armed citizens. Local corruption at a county level, where liberty was not denied, simply isn't an analogous comparison.
what incident(s) with the black panthers are you referring to?
There has not been a national attempt at a dictatorship, hopefully there will not be. The Athens incident does show that those in power can be corrupt, can attempt non constitutional practices, and that civilians have the ability, under the Constitution, to end such attempts by any level of government.
FormerParatroope r

Madison, AL

#8032 Sep 27, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If being considerate is what you're after, you could repost the specific question you're looking for an answer to if you're picking up on a conversation that happened a couple of days ago.
Seatbelt and speed limit laws apply to everyone, even safe drivers. Occupational safety requirements apply to everyone, not just unsafe workers. Prescription drug restrictions apply to everyone, not just those who abuse prescription drugs.
There is a whole range of laws that apply to people who aren't part of the problem. Common sense dictates that preventative measures before someone does something unsafe is the only way to adequately address public safety.
There wasn't a question in the post I was responding to.
Those are all good laws and regulations. There are laws and regulations that cover firearms, as how you can legally use, the manner they can be used, places that firearms cannot be carried, whether they can be carried concealed or openly and who can or cannot possess firearms, all for public safety. These laws and regulations effect everyone equally, and most of the firearm advocates support these.

Just like the First Amendment, there are limits and they are the same. You cannot claim a First Amendment right to make a true threat at someone, nor can you point a firearm at someone as a non verbal threat claiming a Second Amendment right.

The very finite exceptions to the First Amendment apply to the Second.

You know what the GCA covers, so I ask, what would you change or add to this law to further protect the public?

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.

US Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Shots fired near Vice President Biden's Delawar... Jan 20 Nose Pickin Sinner 63
things to consider when buying a new home in sy... Jan 19 primebuildingbrokers 1
Secret Service Panel: Build Bigger Fence Around... Dec '14 Sunshine 2
Street Artist SABO Blasts Lena Dunham, Bill Cli... Dec '14 Anonymous 1
Guard fired after Obama visit: I'm not a convict Nov '14 SirPrize 6
Gainer Mooted as Next Secret Service Director Nov '14 Le Jimbo 21
Police: Obama faced threats during Indiana visit Oct '14 nightcruiser49 1
More from around the web