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.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2643 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
But you aren't proposing any solutions. The left is.
So who REALLY cares more about gun violence? The ones proposing solutions or the ones fighting tooth and nail to prevent solutions from being enacted?
The answer is obvious.
You really don't get it do you? I'm not fighting solutions. I'm fighting infringement on our constitutional rights.
When you come up with a "solution" that will actually have some effect on the lawless (you haven't yet) without trampling the rights of those who have committed no crime (which is about all the gun control lobby has been able to accomplish) I will be the first to advocate for it. You're right, the answer is obvios. You and the gun control advocates don't give a ratsass if you completely rape the constitution just so long as you can say you did "something" even though it's been tried before and has NEVER stopped criminals from obtaining guns.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2644 May 10, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Sham ,first it was Bush and now your background music is McCain but that has nothing to do with record deficits that can not be paid back before Barry leaves office so he , just like Bush , leaves a Hugh problem for some one else to finish.
Barry is looking more Republican all the time or did you just turn a Democratic eye on this inconvenient truth ?
Obama is reducing the deficit. That is objective, verifiable fact.

Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers

Bush Deficits
FY 2007:$161 billion
FY 2008:$458 billion
FY 2009:$1,413 billion

Obama Deficits
FY 2010:$1,294 billion
FY 2011:$1,300 billion
FY 2012:$1,087 billion
FY 2013*:$973 billion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_d...

Guess what?$973 is SMALLER than $1,413.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2645 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you've lost the debate on the facts today, so I guess it's start to begin the name-calling and personal attacks.
I accept your surrender. LOL!
Huh? What facts was I wrong on? NONE Danny, NONE! You're just upset because I tried to be nice and told you where you could get a job. I didn't know you were that opposed to working that you would call me names. Gee, try to do someone a favor and they get all bent out of shape. Staying on welfare must really mean a lot to you. Are you really that lazy? Well I guess so, after all you are a liberal.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2646 May 10, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>Huh? What facts was I wrong on?
All of them.

Everything you post is wrong.

You are ALWAYS wrong.

That's why you have to resort to personal attacks and name-calling - because you can't hold your own in honest, fact-based debate.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#2647 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is reducing the deficit. That is objective, verifiable fact.
Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers
Bush Deficits
FY 2007:$161 billion
FY 2008:$458 billion
FY 2009:$1,413 billion
Obama Deficits
FY 2010:$1,294 billion
FY 2011:$1,300 billion
FY 2012:$1,087 billion
FY 2013*:$973 billion
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_d...
Guess what?$973 is SMALLER than $1,413.
You do have the Democratic eye on this footnote from the website you linked.
>
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget.
>

You are a perfect example of lies , damn lies and statistics .

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2648 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a simple-minded idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Tedious repetition won't make your statement truthful.
REM broke up on Obama's watch. Is that his fault too?
LMAO!
Here are some inconvenient FACTS for your ignorant ass....
The United States current debt number was caused by:
- two wars we didn't pay for
- a prescription drug program ... we didn't pay for
- tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 ... that we didn't pay for
- the Bush Recession, which resulted in more government spending for the social safety-net
2/3 of the debt increase under Obama was related to policies put in place by the previous administration.
In other words, that 2/3 would have happened no matter who was President.
The remaining 1/3 increase was related to safety-net programs -- unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits -- that respond to help families in need during down times. When the economy gets worse, these programs spend more automatically because there are more people qualifying for the benefits.
So, again, the rest of the debt would have happened under a Republican President too.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at
$10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury.

At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at
$16,323,083,449,604.98.

That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.

Oh yeah, and:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

Take a hike, traitor-troll.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2649 May 10, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>You do have the Democratic eye on this footnote from the website you linked.
>
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget.
>
You are a perfect example of lies , damn lies and statistics .
BRILLIANT!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2650 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them.
Everything you post is wrong.
You are ALWAYS wrong.
That's why you have to resort to personal attacks and name-calling - because you can't hold your own in honest, fact-based debate.
Last grasp of a drowning clown. It's hard to accept that you actually believe that >you< have participated in a "honest, fact-based debate".

You need to double-down on your psych meds, traitor-troll.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2651 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is .
And then of course there's the TRUTH:

Obama can’t blame Bush for deficits any longer
By Marc A. Thiessen,April 15, 2013

So who is President Obama going to blame for our deficits now?

Last September, in an interview with “60 Minutes,” Obama laid the blame for the federal budget deficit on the policies he inherited from President George W. Bush.“Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” Obama declared.

Well, if those policies were responsible for 90 percent of the deficit, shouldn’t ending those policies bring the deficit back down?

In January, during the “fiscal-cliff” standoff, Obama succeeded in repealing most of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Yes, Obama agreed to raise the cutoff to $450,000 (rather than the $250,000 he had wanted), but the vast majority of the tax cuts he opposed are now history. So he can’t blame the Bush tax cuts anymore.

He also can’t blame “two wars that weren’t paid for.” Obama has withdrawn all U.S. forces from Iraq and is on track to withdraw most, and possibly all, U.S. troops from Afghanistan during his second term. War spending, which was once as high as $186 billion, is now projected to fall to $37 billion annually from 2015 to 2021 — and zero after that under Obama’s budget. So war spending should no longer be driving the deficit.

How about Medicare Part D? Despite his complaints, Obama supports keeping the program in its current form. He has proposed reforms that would save about $13 billion annually.

As for the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” the recession formally ended in June 2009. And while Obama presided over the weakest recovery since the Great Depression during his first term, his new budget projects that we will finally turn a corner next year and return to robust 3 percent growth beginning in 2014. So under Obama’s own economic projections, a weak economy should no longer be driving deficits.

In other words, the policies and problems that Obama blamed for most of the budget deficit are mostly gone. We should be headed back to the pre-Bush surpluses of the 1990s, before the tax cuts and wars and economic crisis that Bush wrought caused our deficit and debt to skyrocket.

Problems solved, right?

Heck, we should be doing even better than the 1990s. In 2010, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act, which includes $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. With that, we are now almost at the Simpson-Bowles recommended deficit reduction ratio of $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. If anything, our projected surpluses should be even bigger than they were during the 1990s.

So why, then, does President Obama’s budget project $5.3 trillion in deficits, and $8.1 trillion in new debt, over the next decade?

Despite peace, prosperity and the wealthy paying their “fair share,” under Obama’s budget deficits will remain in the $500 billion range for the next 10 years. And by the president’s own projections, the federal debt will double during his presidency — from $10 trillion when he took office to $20 trillion when he leaves....
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-15...

Lay off the kool-aid, traitor-troll.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#2652 May 10, 2013
Armed Veteran is an antigun communist. His primary role here is to defend antigun cops from gun owners.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2653 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them.
Everything you post is wrong.
You are ALWAYS wrong.
That's why you have to resort to personal attacks and name-calling - because you can't hold your own in honest, fact-based debate.
prove it....

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2654 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them.
Everything you post is wrong.
You are ALWAYS wrong.
That's why you have to resort to personal attacks and name-calling - because you can't hold your own in honest, fact-based debate.
Are you a racist, trash-can-dan?

"Mr CHANLER said:

"Mr Speaker: The following language of Alexander Hamilton, in one his essays (No 5) in the Federalist, seems most appropriate at this time and to this subject:

"It is of great Importance in a republic not only to guard society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.
"Justice is the end of government. It is the of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.
"In a society in which tbe stronger faction can readily unite to oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as In a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured the violence of the stronger." ...

"...Hon.[George] Michael Hahn of Louisiana a speech delivered before the Equal Suffrage Association of Washington on Friday November 17, 1865 says:

"Fellow citizens, while we strive to secure the object we have in view--the right of suffrage to American citizens, regardless of color--we must overcome obstacles and difficulties of a serious character which still beset us and the continued existence of which may threaten to prevent our Immediate success. It in necessary, in beginning our work to see that slavery throughout the land is effectually abolished and that the freedmen are protected in their freedom, and in all the advantages and privileges inseparable from the condition of freedom."

And again:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" must be so understood as not to exclude the colored man from the term 'people.'"

[George Michael Hahn,(November 24, 1830- March 15, 1886), was the 19th Governor of Louisiana, Congressman, United States Senator during Reconstruction and after.An adherent of the Union, Hahn became the U. S. Representative from the Louisiana's 2nd congressional district in 1862. Hahn was one of two Louisiana Representatives seated in the 37th Congress which adjourned on 1863 March 4. Eventually, Hahn advised that there should be no more representation from Louisiana until it was reconstructed. During his time in Washington, Hahn met and befriended President Abraham Lincoln.]

- SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. CHANLER, OF NEW YORK. Delivered in the U.S. House of Representatives January 12 1866.(Chanler,(September 14, 1826 – October 19, 1877) was elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-eighth, Thirty-ninth, and Fortieth United States Congresses, serving from March 4, 1863 to March 3, 1869).

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2655 May 10, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>You do have the Democratic eye on this footnote from the website you linked.
>
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget.
>
You are a perfect example of lies , damn lies and statistics .
Ok. So?

Do you have a point?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2656 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at
$10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury.
At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at
$16,323,083,449,604.98.
That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.
Oh yeah, and:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
Take a hike, traitor-troll.
*yawn*

I've already debunked this bullshit multiple times.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2657 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Last grasp of a drowning clown. It's hard to accept that you actually believe that >you< have participated in a "honest, fact-based debate".
You need to double-down on your psych meds, traitor-troll.
Of course I have. Anyone can see it in my posts.

You, on the other hand....

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2658 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And then of course there's the TRUTH:
Obama can’t blame Bush for deficits any longer
By Marc A. Thiessen,April 15, 2013
So who is President Obama going to blame for our deficits now?
Last September, in an interview with “60 Minutes,” Obama laid the blame for the federal budget deficit on the policies he inherited from President George W. Bush.“Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” Obama declared.
Well, if those policies were responsible for 90 percent of the deficit, shouldn’t ending those policies bring the deficit back down?
In January, during the “fiscal-cliff” standoff, Obama succeeded in repealing most of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Yes, Obama agreed to raise the cutoff to $450,000 (rather than the $250,000 he had wanted), but the vast majority of the tax cuts he opposed are now history. So he can’t blame the Bush tax cuts anymore.
He also can’t blame “two wars that weren’t paid for.” Obama has withdrawn all U.S. forces from Iraq and is on track to withdraw most, and possibly all, U.S. troops from Afghanistan during his second term. War spending, which was once as high as $186 billion, is now projected to fall to $37 billion annually from 2015 to 2021 — and zero after that under Obama’s budget. So war spending should no longer be driving the deficit.
How about Medicare Part D? Despite his complaints, Obama supports keeping the program in its current form. He has proposed reforms that would save about $13 billion annually.
As for the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” the recession formally ended in June 2009. And while Obama presided over the weakest recovery since the Great Depression during his first term, his new budget projects that we will finally turn a corner next year and return to robust 3 percent growth beginning in 2014. So under Obama’s own economic projections, a weak economy should no longer be driving deficits.
In other words, the policies and problems that Obama blamed for most of the budget deficit are mostly gone. We should be headed back to the pre-Bush surpluses of the 1990s, before the tax cuts and wars and economic crisis that Bush wrought caused our deficit and debt to skyrocket.
Problems solved, right?
Heck, we should be doing even better than the 1990s. In 2010, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act, which includes $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. With that, we are now almost at the Simpson-Bowles recommended deficit reduction ratio of $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. If anything, our projected surpluses should be even bigger than they were during the 1990s.
So why, then, does President Obama’s budget project $5.3 trillion in deficits, and $8.1 trillion in new debt, over the next decade?
Despite peace, prosperity and the wealthy paying their “fair share,” under Obama’s budget deficits will remain in the $500 billion range for the next 10 years. And by the president’s own projections, the federal debt will double during his presidency — from $10 trillion when he took office to $20 trillion when he leaves....
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-15...
Lay off the kool-aid, traitor-troll.
tl;dr

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2659 May 10, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>prove it....
I don't need to. You do it for me with every. single. post.

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2660 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a racist, trash-can-dan?
"Mr CHANLER said:
"Mr Speaker: The following language of Alexander Hamilton, in one his essays (No 5) in the Federalist, seems most appropriate at this time and to this subject:
"It is of great Importance in a republic not only to guard society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.
"Justice is the end of government. It is the of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.
"In a society in which tbe stronger faction can readily unite to oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as In a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured the violence of the stronger." ...
"...Hon.[George] Michael Hahn of Louisiana a speech delivered before the Equal Suffrage Association of Washington on Friday November 17, 1865 says:
"Fellow citizens, while we strive to secure the object we have in view--the right of suffrage to American citizens, regardless of color--we must overcome obstacles and difficulties of a serious character which still beset us and the continued existence of which may threaten to prevent our Immediate success. It in necessary, in beginning our work to see that slavery throughout the land is effectually abolished and that the freedmen are protected in their freedom, and in all the advantages and privileges inseparable from the condition of freedom."
And again:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" must be so understood as not to exclude the colored man from the term 'people.'"
[George Michael Hahn,(November 24, 1830- March 15, 1886), was the 19th Governor of Louisiana, Congressman, United States Senator during Reconstruction and after.An adherent of the Union, Hahn became the U. S. Representative from the Louisiana's 2nd congressional district in 1862. Hahn was one of two Louisiana Representatives seated in the 37th Congress which adjourned on 1863 March 4. Eventually, Hahn advised that there should be no more representation from Louisiana until it was reconstructed. During his time in Washington, Hahn met and befriended President Abraham Lincoln.]
- SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. CHANLER, OF NEW YORK. Delivered in the U.S. House of Representatives January 12 1866.(Chanler,(September 14, 1826 – October 19, 1877) was elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-eighth, Thirty-ninth, and Fortieth United States Congresses, serving from March 4, 1863 to March 3, 1869).
tl;dr
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2661 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
tl;dr
Figures, you can't read too much all at once. Too much for you to take in. No wonder you miss so much that is posted...it's"too long," so you "didn't read".. I can see why you miss so much...you just don't have the ability to read more then a sentence.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2662 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to. You do it for me with every. single. post.
LMAO!
So in other words you can't prove your accusations. There was another nut that used to come here and accused several posters of outlandish things...could never prove his accustions, eventually the nut left because he could not back his accusations.
You should remember him, you complimented him several times. His name was Nuggin and he eventually proved himself to be mentally ill. So have you become the new Nuggin? You accuse without facts and proof. He taught you how to be a good little liar now didn't he?

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 Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban 9 hr Jagermann 200
News 'How many more tragedies' asks mayor, after 11-... 11 hr payme 3
News American Outdoor Brands Corp: Time to Move On? 12 hr payme 13
News Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by th... 15 hr jimwildrickjr 2
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Wed Sentry Watch 120
News Official Heckler And Koch 22Lr Replica Rifles (Jan '10) Mar 20 okimar 5
News 'Veteran Second Amendment Act' under fire right... Mar 19 FormerParatrooper 7
More from around the web