Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10987 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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8745 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all human life has equal value.
Up until one life has no regard for the other...giving others the right to defend themselves.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8746 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, go learn what that term means.
Seriously;

"Why can't you get it through your very thick skull that the logical conclusion this tedious, asinine argument is the elimination of ALL laws, since criminals don't obey them anyway."

Oh look...strawman.

No one said anything about "elimination of ALL laws"...your strawman.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument--usually something extreme or easy to argue against--that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.

Learn what YOU are talking about before telling others to.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8747 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but failed attempts in individual states are irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment - which is what we're discussing - which only applies to the federal government.
Nice try, though. I'm sure your gunner friends will all be very impressed. LOL!
Your comment;

"Nobody's trying to disarm the American people.
Why does it always come back to that lie with you? Why can't you have an honest debate?"

"failed attempts"...are just that...and is a fact of "trying".

"...irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment - which is what we're discussing - which only applies to the federal government."

That was true until McDonald...the same restrictions of "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment that apply to the federal government have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment making the same restrictiona apply to the States and local governments.

"Nice try, though. I'm sure your gunner friends will all be very impressed."

Nice try, though...I'm sure they are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8749 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Eliminate drunk driving by eliminating cars.
Eliminate felons with firearms by putting the people who sell them the guns in jail next to the felons who buy them.

It won't take long.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8750 Oct 8, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text> Okay, here is a direct quote from your post #8589:
"Only a fraction of gun killings are committed by psychos and people who were already criminals when they did the shooting."
What fraction are you referring to and what data do you have to support your statement?
Asked and answered. Try to keep up.
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, less than half.
And the source is the same as your source that most fatal shootings are committed by criminals and psychos.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8751 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Eliminate drunk driving by eliminating cars.
Eliminate deaths by guns by eliminating guns.
So what was that you said about not wanting to take guns...?
"Logical reasoning really isn't your thing, is it? LOL!"
Is that what you call that...?
Those are your words, not mine.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8752 Oct 8, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah...imagine how awful that would be if we could duplicate Japan's feat and bring down the gun homicides from 12K a year to 11... that would just suck....bwhhahahahaha... squachtard could still jerk 0ff about his 2nd amendment rights though...
who knows, he could team up with maraudertard and armedvetard perform as the circle jerk trio....
We're really not interested in your sexual fantasies of being a pivot man.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8753 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously;
"Why can't you get it through your very thick skull that the logical conclusion this tedious, asinine argument is the elimination of ALL laws, since criminals don't obey them anyway."
Oh look...strawman.
No one said anything about "elimination of ALL laws"...your strawman.
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument--usually something extreme or easy to argue against--that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.
Learn what YOU are talking about before telling others to.
Saying, "You are saying..." and then putting forth an argument the other person did not make and arguing with that is a strawman argument.

Saying, "Taken to the logical conclusion, your position would mean that..." is NOT a strawman argument. I did not attribute that argument to you. I didn't misrepresent your argument.

It wasn't a strawman argument. You don't know what you're talking about.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8754 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
"Nice try, though. I'm sure your gunner friends will all be very impressed."
Nice try, though...I'm sure they are.
Squash proved that almost immediately.

Unfortunately those of us capable of independent thought and logical reasoning are NOT impressed with your jr high debate tactics like he was.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8755 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are your words, not mine.
These are your words;

"Without a car, a drunk isn't driving, is he?"

Care to elaborate...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8756 Oct 8, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>\
so a well regulated militia means a well regulated people...thanks... you just proved armed vet a moron again....bwhhahahahhaha
hence, you are not a militia by any means, you have no business arming yourself...and you barely hit a urinal, which means you are not qualified to carry or own anything beyond some rubber bands..
ROTFLMAO...yes "little johnny"...you are a moron.

Would you care to test your theory...?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8757 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
.the same restrictions of "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment
Funny how the gun gnutters can only remember short sections of any amendment or a paragraph or two of any SCOTUS decision.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Gosh.

Complete sentences...
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8758 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying, "You are saying..." and then putting forth an argument the other person did not make and arguing with that is a strawman argument.
Saying, "Taken to the logical conclusion, your position would mean that..." is NOT a strawman argument. I did not attribute that argument to you. I didn't misrepresent your argument.
It wasn't a strawman argument. You don't know what you're talking about.
"Taken to the logical conclusion, your position would mean that..."

and;

"You are saying..."

ROTFLMAO...nuff said.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8759 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
These are your words;
"Without a car, a drunk isn't driving, is he?"
Care to elaborate...?
Sure.

Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.

Clear enough?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8760 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Taken to the logical conclusion, your position would mean that..."
and;
"You are saying..."
ROTFLMAO...nuff said.
Nope, not at all. The first argument does not in any way imply the second. You are making a leap in logic not supported by the facts.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8761 Oct 8, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Why can’t you finish what you start
You mean like the way you like to start in the middle?

"... we gun gnutters don't like all the words to the Second Amendment so we will post the ones we like".
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8762 Oct 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how the gun gnutters can only remember short sections of any amendment or a paragraph or two of any SCOTUS decision.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Gosh.
Complete sentences...
Look who's talking. That quote was a personal opinion by only one of the members. NOT a ruling. The court can only rule on issues before them under the context of their argument. No other court ruling or law was before them therefore no ruling on legal or not. "Should not be taken to cast doubt" is a long way from saying "there is no doubt" just that this ruling did not apply to those "other" laws or rulings. As of the date of this "comment" there are infringements on the right that have NOT been addressed by the court or even presented for them to rule on nor was the question asked of the court if the right was unlimited. Gosh next time you should study law and court rulings before placing that nasty foot in your mouth.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8763 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
George Jones was charged DUI on a lawn mower. There are more cases like being charged DUI while riding a horse. But when you address drunk driving there is no mention or even a hint of banning cars. I have yet to see a news report of a DUI death that named the type of car used, yet "assault weapon" is used even when it is later proven none was present. News groups jump before they even have the facts in cases they can fluff. Do you even have any idea of what car is used most in DUI cases? And yes there are plenty of cases where cars were used as weapons and if you had any brain you would know most of the time they are used in anti gun zones. You simply want to trade one type of violence for another. Sorry but us "pro self defense" citizens "will not negotiate".
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8764 Oct 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like the way you like to start in the middle?
"... we gun gnutters don't like all the words to the Second Amendment so we will post the ones we like".
And you anti rights people leave out the important words "right of the people". Not "some people" or "right of the Militia". Too bad you just can't get around that part no matter how hard you try.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8765 Oct 8, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
Then again you also forget drunk driving IS legal as long as it's not on a government road. Also You can be charged with DUI even if you are of no danger to yourself or others on the road. There are cases where drivers where charged on closed roads with no other traffic on it and in cases where the driver was operating a very slow vehicle on the shoulder, not in traffic lanes. in fact just sitting in a car on the shoulder while drunk has been used to charge DUI. I have never heard any DUI or other assault by car or even murder by car cases as listed as car violence.

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
News Heavy security at Trump Tower not going away an... Nov 22 Lawrence Wolf 27
News Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sp... Nov 7 RushFan666 30
News Russian man convicted of hacking into US busine... Aug '16 Mizike67 5
News Russian man faces US trial in lucrative hacking... Aug '16 Nu Wor Order 4
News Cleveland prepares for RNC convention protests (May '16) May '16 Hostis Publicus 9
News Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offen... (May '16) May '16 Jelly Belly Popcorn 3
News Man shot outside White House remains in critica... (May '16) May '16 WeTheSheeple 2
More from around the web