Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 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: 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.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8766 Oct 8, 2013
Inside One Detective's Fight Against LA's Hit-and-Run Crisis
n the heart of Los Angeles' smoldering, gritty skid row sits the LAPD Central Division. Inside, one man with the weight of a city-wide epidemic on his shoulders waits for the phone to ring -- another call to investigate another killer.

Detective Felix Padilla has been working in the LAPD's traffic division for over a decade and focuses on a special breed of killers, ones who don't use a knife or a gun, but a car.
The epidemic, as L.A. Weekly called it in a series of articles, is hit-and-run incidents. His division alone sees an average of 8,000 incidents per year. With a fatal hit-and-run, it is a murder, plain and simple. "I think if we let the public know that these crimes are so frequent that we need their assistance, once they grasp that concept, you know, they will be able to help us more," he said. "The more they help us, the more cases we'll solve."
Versus

UK

#8767 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...
You dare expose =>YOUR<= ignorance before the WHOLE world!?!

Well, you open yourself to endless ridicule as a result!

YOU are an ANTI-GUN NUTTER!

No right is unlimited, inasmuch as to imply such would be to say that murder is totally acceptable.

However, ALL rights are ABSOLUTE. The idea of 'Absolute,' and 'unlimited' connote TWO entirely different concepts. But =>YOU<= wouldn't know that, inasmuch as you're a SUPREME dullard, and a DOTARD to boot!

Yet, you would imply that self-defense is unacceptable, if only that you disagree with the manner in which that defense is undertaken.

But, self-defense is unmistakably, and unequivocally recognised by ALL legal authorities as being =TOTALLY WITHOUT= limits, when there are NO OTHER OPTIONS.

Oh, and one last item: YOUR —unreferenced— quote above is part of the Obiter Dicta of the case you DID NOT care to mention.

Obiter Dicta is =NOT= a part of the Ratio Decidendi, i.e., the DECISION itself.

Obiter Dicta CANNOT be used —in any way, manner, fashion, shape, or form— as setting precedent, and therefore is WITHOUT legal value for any future subsequent finding.

Obiter Dicta has the essence of nothing more than a 'legal fart': It wafts in the wind, soon lost of its ability to impress anyone save the one originating the statement.
Versus

UK

#8768 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".
But THAT'S what =>YOU<= do, isn't it?

What part of the Second Article of Amendment don't =>YOU<= understand?

Is THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE mentioned in the FIrst, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Articles of Amendment, somehow different than that which is mentioned in the Second?

And if so, how would that be?

PLEASE =DO= PROVIDE historical information from the time of the FOUNDERS of the United States, which would tend to support ~your~ contentions.

You'll be doing that, won't you?

Real soon now, right?

RIGHT?!??!

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 Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May 13 Belinda 1
US Secret Service Clothes (Sep '06) May 8 nikonnicky 28
News Russian hacker faces decades in prison Apr '17 USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr '17 alina 7
News Oklahoma state senator plans to resign followin... Mar '17 Dakoter 44
News Man who drove suspicious car near White House i... Mar '17 RustyS 1
News Secret Service laptop containing Trump Tower ev... Mar '17 Cordwainer Trout 7
More from around the web