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
think about it

Fayetteville, 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

Fayetteville, 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?
think about it

Fayetteville, PA

#2663 May 10, 2013
The IRS has apologized for singling out conservatives, they regret being caught.

The IRS is the new Nazi Party. That should make the liberals happy

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2664 May 10, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Not "can't."

"Unwilling to."

It's has proven to be a complete waste of my time reading his unoriginal, redundant cut-n-paste drivel. If he has an argument to make, he can use his own words and do it concisely.

Actually, he CAN'T. It is physically impossible for him to do that due to his low intellect and lack of education beyond high school. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2665 May 10, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>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?
ASAD - I don't lie and you know it.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2666 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ASAD - I don't lie and you know it.
You are a walking, talking LIE.

"Sir, I am obliged to pass by, for want of time other grave and dangerous infractions and usurpations of the President since the fourth of March. I only allude casually to the quartering of soldiers in private houses without the consent of the owners, and without any manner having been prescribed by law; to the subversion in a part at least of Maryland of her own State government and the authorities under it: to the censorship over the telegraph, and the infringement repeatedly, in one or more of the States, of the right of the people to keep and to bear arms for their defense. But if all these things, I ask, have been done in the first two months after the commencement of this war, and by men not military chieftains and unused to arbitrary power, what may we not expect to see in three years, and by the successful heroes of the fight? Sir, the power and rights of the States and the people, and of their Representatives, have been usurped; the sanctity of the private house and of private property has been invaded; and the liberty of the person wantonly and wickedly stricken down; free speech, too, has been repeatedly denied; arid all this under the plea of necessity. Sir, the right of petition will follow next--nay, it has already been shaken; the freedom of the press will soon fall after it; and let me whisper in your ear, that there will be few to mourn over its loss, unless, indeed, its ancient high and honorable character shall be rescued and redeemed from its present reckless mendacity and degradation. Freedom of religion will yield too, at last, amid the exultant shouts millions, who have seen its holy temples defiled and its white robes of a former innocency trampled now under the polluting hoofs of an ambitious and faithless or fanatical clergy. Meantime national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct tax[a]tion, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation, anarchy first and a strong government afterwards, no more State lines, no more State governments, and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism, must all follow in the history of the future, as in the history of the past they have, centuries ago, been written."--Mr. Clement L. Vallandigham, July 10, 1861. U.S. House of Representatives, The Congressional Globe Pg. 60.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2667 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "can't."
"Unwilling to."
It's has proven to be a complete waste of my time reading his unoriginal, redundant cut-n-paste drivel. If he has an argument to make, he can use his own words and do it concisely.
Actually, he CAN'T. It is physically impossible for him to do that due to his low intellect and lack of education beyond high school. LOL!
Have done enough to make you out the completely ignorant trash-can-man that you are.

You don't even possess the right reasoning to understand. That if they do get the guns. Then ALL of the rest of our rights will tumble down rapidly thereafter.

Your level of intelligence and right reason is far below even the least minimal of standards. You fall below ZERO.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2668 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a walking, talking LIE.
That's as far as I read.

And I don't lie. You might not agree with my opinions, but I do not lie.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2670 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have done enough to make you out the completely ignorant trash-can-man that you are.
You don't even possess the right reasoning to understand. That if they do get the guns. Then ALL of the rest of our rights will tumble down rapidly thereafter.
Your level of intelligence and right reason is far below even the least minimal of standards. You fall below ZERO.
Calm down, nutcase - nobody's trying to take anyone's guns.

Every time you post some paranoid and irrational horseshit like this, your credibility just drops more and more.

At this point it's somewhere near the core of the earth. LMAO!
think about it

Fayetteville, PA

#2671 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
That's as far as I read.
And I don't lie. You might not agree with my opinions, but I do not lie.
According to Danny, rugs don't lie either!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2672 May 10, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text> According to Danny, rugs don't lie either!
Don't try to be clever. You don't have the IQ to pull it off.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2673 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to be clever. You don't have the IQ to pull it off.
Mumbling to yourself again, eh trash-can-dan?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2674 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to be clever. You don't have the IQ to pull it off.
How the hell would you even know if he was clever or not? You don't have the IQ to recognize it.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2675 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to be clever. You don't have the IQ to pull it off.
Here's another one, just for you trash-can-dan:

"Another charge is, that the President has violated the Constitution of the United States in this: that he has disarmed citizens; refused them the privilege, under the Constitution, of bearing arms. Sir, it is true that he has refused traitors the privilege of using arms against the Government of the country. General Lyon, of Missouri, and the gallant Frank Blair, and their associates, did disarm some fifteen hundred rebels at Camp Jackson, near St. Louis; and for that we are told they are violators of the Constitution. What other instance does the Senator from Kentucky remember in which the right to bear arms been refused to any citizen? The President has not only guarantied, by his action, the right to bear arms, but he has invited the patriotic citizens of the United States to bear arms for the only noble purpose for which men can take arms--in defense of the Constitution and liberties of people. Is the right to bear arms in Kentucky so sacred that it may never be violated? Then, why do you not bear arms in defense of the Constitution and liberties of the Republic? There is a right to bear arms that is worth something. Does Kentucky stand upon the right to arms? Why is she not bearing arms upon the battle-field to-day, beside Massachusetts and Indiana and Ohio, and the loyal States? Why does she not insist upon her right to bear arms, when traitors are seeking to tear down the Government under which we live?"

- Senator James H. Lane, of Indiana, July 16, 1861, The Congressional Globe, Pg. 143.(James Henry Lane also known as Jim Lane,(June 22, 1814 – July 11, 1866), served as a United States Senator, and as a General who fought for the Union).

It must really SUCK being you, eh?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2676 May 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>irrational horseshit!
Yeah, that's you alright. Here you go, trash-can-dan:

"We demand it according to law; we demand it upon the guarantees of the Constitution. You are bound to guaranty to us are republican form of Government, and we ask it as constitutional right. We do not ask you to interfere as a party, as your feelings or prejudices may be one way or another in reference to the parties of the country; but we ask you to interfere as a Government according to the Constitution. Of course we want your sympathy, and your regard, and your respect; but we ask your interference on constitutional grounds.
"The amendments to the Constitution, which constitute the bill of rights, declare that "a regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep bear arms shall not be infringed." Our people are denied this right secured to them in their constitution and the Constitution of the United States; yet we hear no complaints here of violations of the Constitution in this respect. We ask the Government to interpose to secure us this constitutional right."

- Senator Powell, July 27, 1861. The Congressional Globe, Pg. 296.(Lazarus W. Powell,(Oct. 6, 1812 – July 3, 1867), was the 19th Governor of Kentucky, from 1851 to 1855. And later elected to represent Kentucky in the U.S. Senate from 1859 to 1865.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2677 May 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ASAD - I ... lie and you know it.
Here LIAR, choke on this:

"...I understand that while I was temporarily absent from the Senate some time ago, the senator from New York expressed some very erroneous views in reference to the positions I took in the few remarks which I had the honor to submit in the early part of this discussion. What I said, if not with entire distinctness, I had hoped with sufficient clearness to be understood, was, that a citizen of the United States has a right to expatriate himself, that there was no power in the executive government to prevent his doing so, and that in leaving the country he had the right to bear arms. These propositions being true, I illustrated them in my own person by saying that I had the right to shoulder my musket and shake hands with the President, telling him I was going to Nicaragua, or any other country, to take part in a civil war, and that he had no right to molest me. I said every other citizen of the republic had precisely the same right...."[Pg. 514]

"...Then we are asked to assert that all this was done "in arresting a lawless military expedition set on foot in the United States." That assumes the whole matter in controversy. I undertake to say that the expedition was not lawless and that no facts have been presented to show that it was so. Even the enthusiastic senator from Wisconsin admits the right of expatriation. He would claim for himself at this very moment the right to leave the country, to swear allegiance to any other government; and in going, to bear arms upon his person, would he not? Is there a senator here; is there an American citizen who listens to me at this moment, who would not claim for himself the right to leave his country, to expatriate himself, to swear allegiance to any other government, and in doing so, to bear arms on his person? Did Walker or any of those supposed to have been under his command, do anything more? They went, and they went with arms in their hands, as they had a right to do, as the President admits, as every senator that has yet spoken admits, and as the senator from Wisconsin claims that he would have the right to do. Then, by what authority is it called lawless? Have men acted in a lawless manner in doing that which all of us claim we have a right to do? Is there any lawlessness in doing that which every man insists every American citizen has a right to do, and which you may not hinder under any existing law, and for the hinderance of which you never will pass any law through Congress?

"It is assumed that the expedition was set on foot in the United States. Where is the evidence of it, sir? Where is the proof? I deny it! I say the fact is not as stated. I say there was no expedition, lawless or otherwise, set on foot in the United States. I admit that persons who were born under our flag and entitled to the protection of our laws, went voluntarily, every man acting on his own responsibility, with arms in their hands, with a view to assist what they claimed to be the rightful government of Nicaragua, in the person of William Walker. This, I claim, they had the right to do. It was no expedition set on foot. It was a body of American citizens, each man for himself, acting for himself, and on his own responsibility, doing precisely what, under the law, he had a right to do."

- Mr. Albert G.Brown, Jan. 21, 1858,[Speeches, Messages and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator In Congress From The State of Mississippi. 1859. Pg. 520](Albert Gallatin Brown,(May 31, 1813 – June 12, 1880), was Governor of Mississippi from 1844 to 1848. And a U.S. Senator from 1854 through 1861).

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#2678 May 11, 2013
The communist trash is everyhwere.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2679 May 11, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Coward that you are, your back would be the only target available as you run away leaving a trail of feces in your wake. However being a sane, law abiding firearms owner Armed Vet would not waste any ammo on the likes of you. One is only justified in using deadly force when threatened with deadly force and you're only a threat to yourself, it's more fun for folks like us to just watch you selfdestruct.
Spot on, Squach.

Don't for a minute think I give a damn what the likes of Dannyboy or Barefoot think. They are as ignorant as they are irrelevant, which is evident by the personal ad hominem attacks when their argument is smashed to pieces. At best they are a humorous, clueless distraction.(and Barefoot has the worst case of penis envy of any poster I have ever seen on these threads)

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2680 May 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot on, Squach.
Don't for a minute think I give a damn what the likes of Dannyboy or Barefoot think. They are as ignorant as they are irrelevant, which is evident by the personal ad hominem attacks when their argument is smashed to pieces. At best they are a humorous, clueless distraction.(and Barefoot has the worst case of penis envy of any poster I have ever seen on these threads)
They can't make their agenda look good unless all gun owners are vilified. They want to portray every single gun owner as some kind of threat. If you own a gun you'll probably get angry and shoot a dozen of your neighbors, or you'll leave it where it can be stolen by a criminal, or someone in the home will be killed accidentally, or you'll sell it to someone wearing a straight jacket, etc. Yet they call the purpose of the 2nd amendment "paranoid"! ROTFLMAO. There have been guns in my home since I was a child yet I've never been involved in a firearms accident or a crime involving a firearm. Millions of law abiding gun owners can say the same thing. Prohibition and the "war" on drugs evidently didn't teach them anything either. When you ban something all you do is create a lucrative black market for whatever is banned. The other thing that amazes me is they refuse to see that a psycho killer without a gun is still a psycho killer and shooting is just ONE way of killing innocent unsuspecting people. They use the same arguments and tactics in their attempts to ban hunting. They are driven by pure emotion, there is no clear thought or logic involved. The liberals want to protect the rights of the criminals, gang members, and psychos by not locking them up or executing them and putting them back on the street to commit more crimes but they have no problem wiping their feet on our rights when their pet crazies and criminals commit heinous acts. They completely ignore the fact that most of the individuals who commit these crimes would have been locked up somewhere if not for their liberal policies. Go figure.....

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2681 May 11, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"Another charge is
The GayDavy menu:

Egg and Bacon;

Egg, sausage and Bacon;

Egg and Spam;

Spam Egg Sausage and Spam;

Egg, Bacon and Spam;

Egg, Bacon, sausage and Spam;

Spam, Bacon, sausage and Spam;

Spam, Egg, Spam, Spam, Bacon and Spam;

Spam, Spam, Spam, Egg and Spam;

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam;

Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam

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
Locked And Loaded: Thank God These 'Good Guys' ... 59 min Shelly Bl 30
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 1 hr You are wrong 11,821
D.C. government faces possible contempt over CC... 1 hr Tory II 1
Moms Demand Action 'Prepared to Fight' Texas Op... 6 hr paddyomalley 2
Ore. state senator pitches background check bill (Jan '14) Fri Ben 6
Concealed carry does not make us safer (Nov '09) Nov 19 Julia 6,984
The Ladt Bullet you will ever need. Nov 17 Is it possible 11

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE