Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10989 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.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4473 Jun 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Whoops, arguing with that strawman again.
I guess when you desperately need to win a debate with someone it's easiest to just create that person yourself, huh?
Come back when you can debate arguments that I've actually made. LOL!
"Come back when you can debate arguments that I've actually made."
A. I see.
Well then Dan, how about you actually make an argument concerning a firearms rally at Chambersburg Square? Perhaps I could engage you on that issue ... IF ... you ever make such an argument.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4474 Jun 17, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"Come back when you can debate arguments that I've actually made."
A. I see.
Well then Dan, how about you actually make an argument concerning a firearms rally at Chambersburg Square? Perhaps I could engage you on that issue ... IF ... you ever make such an argument.
Yeah, I did that two months ago when the thread started. It doesn't make you look very smart to come late then accuse me of not making an argument I've already made.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4475 Jun 17, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"Are you advocating that we arm children?!"
A. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!
"And again - I've never advocated for banning guns. That's a strawman argument YOU invented."
A. Well then, that's different eh.
What was it again that you advocate concerning my natural right to keep and bear whatever arm I so choose?
I don't have much of anything to say about your right to keep and bear arms. My issue is with the argument that anybody and everybody has the absolute right to own any and every gun and as much ammo as they want without any restrictions. Being a reasonable person, surely you agree that's a terrible idea, right?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4476 Jun 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I did that two months ago when the thread started. It doesn't make you look very smart to come late then accuse me of not making an argument I've already made.
Oh my. I must be careful about how I look - here.
<rolls eyes>
Did you go down to the rally?
What did you say?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4477 Jun 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have much of anything to say about your right to keep and bear arms. My issue is with the argument that anybody and everybody has the absolute right to own any and every gun and as much ammo as they want without any restrictions. Being a reasonable person, surely you agree that's a terrible idea, right?
Define "restrictions".
No can agree with you until I know what you have to say about "restrictions".

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4478 Jun 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I did that two months ago when the thread started. It doesn't make you look very smart to come late then accuse me of not making an argument I've already made.
OK.
I went back and checked your posts from "two months ago" and guess what I found Dan?

>YOU< saying repeatedly, the SAME damn thing you just did; "reasonable restrictions", "reasonable regulation" and not one damn place did you define what "reasonable", "regulation", or "restriction" is. You just did it AGAIN - Dan.

It does not make >YOU< look very smart to "talk" while only saying buzz words and supposed talking points, yet you never actually talk about them.
What you did then was go right into your pitiful attack mode and accusatory assault of others.

Define:
reasonable regulations

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4479 Jun 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have much of anything to say about your right to keep and bear arms. My issue is with the argument that anybody and everybody has the absolute right to own any and every gun and as much ammo as they want without any restrictions. Being a reasonable person, surely you agree that's a terrible idea, right?
How many cars can I own Dan?
How about homes? How many homes can I own Dan?
Hey, I like antique hand tools. How many antique hand tools can I own Dan?

What would be "reasonable", according to yourself, in the maximum number of each of the above items I can own?
Dan?
How many is reasonable to you?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4480 Jun 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
And again - I've never advocated for banning guns. That's a strawman argument YOU invented.
It was not an argument Dan, straight up or strawman.
It was a direct accusation of what I perceive to be your intent on that slippery slope you climbed out upon.

What, exactly DO you advocate when it comes to your fellow citizens owning a thing, specifically firearms and the ammunition that goes with them?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4481 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
.......It's selfish, immoral, and un-American.
And it's also bullshit. I am so sick of this "do it for the children" crap when it comes to guns. All that is is a LAME-ASS attempt to throw a guilt trip on gun owners because of the actions of the irresponsible and criminal. Nothing more.....nothing less.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#4482 Jun 18, 2013
Tory II wrote:
Sickness and disease killed More Americans Than Terrorists Did This Year.

Again, 20-30 children die each day. Most from sickness and disease, and then accidents, and then from homicide.
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
America does everything possible to reduce every single cause of death in children. We spend billions of dollars studying and fighting sickness, disease, and accidents.
But if anyone even suggests expending the same energy and money fighting gun deaths among children, the right explodes into shrieks of outrage.
It's selfish, immoral, and un-American.
Liar.

Guns allow us to keep our freedom. Gun deaths among children are negligible (least causes of death). Guns protect children from death more than they kill children.

Get real, communist. And we know you don't care about children.

IT's unAmerican to oppose gun possession. The communist is the biggest liar.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#4483 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Are you advocating that we arm children?!
And again - I've never advocated for banning guns. That's a strawman argument YOU invented.
YOU are an antigun commmunist (and a liar)!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#4484 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I did that two months ago when the thread started. It doesn't make you look very smart to come late then accuse me of not making an argument I've already made.
Aw crap! You're back with the same ineffectual argument you used before. It didn't work then either. Have fun storming the castle......
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#4485 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right. Reasonable regulation is not a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights. That's been established by the Supreme Court.
Even the most extreme activist rightwing justice in America knows it - Scalia says,“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
"Of course, properly understood,[the Second Amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states."
- Antonin Scalia in “A Matter of Interpretation”
"[The Second Amendment] is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
- Scalia on Fox "news" last year
We don't care what any government bastard states as their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Intelligent people who can actually *think for themselves* can look back at the clear context of the 2nd Amendment and clearly see that they were talking about the body of people being armed, with military arms, in order to set up a deterrent which would make any tyrannical government, foreign or domestic, "think twice" about overthrowing We The Peoples' liberty and rights by force, since We The People are so armed and in great numbers, those tyrannical governments would lose, without doubt in reality.

Anyone, private citizen or government agent, who openly denies the obvious context of the 2nd Amendment explained above is, therefore, literally a liar-propagandist or, an unintelligent, brainwashed pawn who needs to study up on history before stepping to anyone of us who know much more than they assume we do.

Your choice to pick which one you are.
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#4486 Jun 18, 2013
And as for "regulation" of this militia (made of the body of people): it's done privately, not by government.

The militia is set up to protect We The People from government tyranny; therefore, only a clueless dunce or liar-propagandist would so erroneously assume that the government has some supposed "right" to regulate that militia and/or their arms.

We The People will regulate ourselves. If the government is of, by and for the people then, that government will have no problem with this.

If that government is acting like it's for the people yet is scared of the people having such power, it therefore proves that this "government" is [secretly] set up to fight the people in the end, since only enemies hate their competitors having massive amounts of strength to defend their rights and liberties.

-

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise *free to regulate their own* pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and all that is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms..." - Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

-

It's quite clear the context of the 2nd Amendment when people read many of the quotes from the founding fathers and others who lived around 200 years ago. The right to keep and bear arms by the people, as they're the militia, is to protect their liberties from all tyrannical forces, foreign and domestic.

Only traitors or misled simpletons disagree with this.
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#4487 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have much of anything to say about your right to keep and bear arms. My issue is with the argument that anybody and everybody has the absolute right to own any and every gun and as much ammo as they want without any restrictions. Being a reasonable person, surely you agree that's a terrible idea, right?
If you think this way about We The People then, do you also think the same way about the government?

What if that government chooses to abuse their arms against the citizens here or abroad?

Since you're worried about an AR15 ending up in a private criminals' hands, then *surely* you'd be terrified of nuclear weapons ending up in a possible future dictators' hands within the government?

Therefore, if you seek restrictions on arms owned by citizens, you thus must [severely] restrict arms held by the government.

You cannot pick and choose only one to restrict, yet ignore the other side ending up with probable tyrannical, fascist criminals [in government] holding massive amounts of deadly firepower...*if* you're a reasonable thinking person, right? ;-)

So will you pick and choose like a two-faced hypocrite? Or...?

This is all about the balance of power between We The People and the government.

MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - this is basically what helped prevent the "Cold War" from turning "Hot" all those years ago.

It's no different with any group of citizens and the government.

The balance of power is what truly helps keep the peace and prevents lopsided [government] tyranny from taking over, or lopsided [anarchy] chaos from ruling.

So either the people have to boost of their strength of arms or, the government must severely downsize.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4488 Jun 18, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think this way about We The People then, do you also think the same way about the government?
What if that government chooses to abuse their arms against the citizens here or abroad?
Since you're worried about an AR15 ending up in a private criminals' hands, then *surely* you'd be terrified of nuclear weapons ending up in a possible future dictators' hands within the government?
Therefore, if you seek restrictions on arms owned by citizens, you thus must [severely] restrict arms held by the government.
You cannot pick and choose only one to restrict, yet ignore the other side ending up with probable tyrannical, fascist criminals [in government] holding massive amounts of deadly firepower...*if* you're a reasonable thinking person, right? ;-)
So will you pick and choose like a two-faced hypocrite? Or...?
This is all about the balance of power between We The People and the government.
MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - this is basically what helped prevent the "Cold War" from turning "Hot" all those years ago.
It's no different with any group of citizens and the government.
The balance of power is what truly helps keep the peace and prevents lopsided [government] tyranny from taking over, or lopsided [anarchy] chaos from ruling.
So either the people have to boost of their strength of arms or, the government must severely downsize.
<clap clap clap clap clap clap clap>

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4489 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. I must be careful about how I look - here.
<rolls eyes>
Did you go down to the rally?
What did you say?
Of course I didn't go to the rally. Why would I?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4490 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
OK.
I went back and checked your posts from "two months ago" and guess what I found Dan?
>YOU< saying repeatedly, the SAME damn thing you just did; "reasonable restrictions", "reasonable regulation" and not one damn place did you define what "reasonable", "regulation", or "restriction" is. You just did it AGAIN - Dan.
It does not make >YOU< look very smart to "talk" while only saying buzz words and supposed talking points, yet you never actually talk about them.
What you did then was go right into your pitiful attack mode and accusatory assault of others.
Define:
reasonable regulations
No, when the thread started I addressed the specific subject of the thread - a demonstration in support of nullification of federal law.

Many reasonable restrictions have been proposed. Limits on magazine capacities is reasonable. Universal background checks is reasonable.

But the issue is that gunners believe there should be NO restrictions whatsoever and that existing restrictions are unconstitutional. Are you in that camp?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4491 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
How many cars can I own Dan?
How about homes? How many homes can I own Dan?
Hey, I like antique hand tools. How many antique hand tools can I own Dan?
What would be "reasonable", according to yourself, in the maximum number of each of the above items I can own?
Dan?
How many is reasonable to you?
Uh oh - there's that strawman again. LOL!

Where have I ever suggested that there should be limits on the number of guns anyone can own?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4492 Jun 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And it's also bullshit. I am so sick of this "do it for the children" crap when it comes to guns. All that is is a LAME-ASS attempt to throw a guilt trip on gun owners because of the actions of the irresponsible and criminal. Nothing more.....nothing less.
It's not a guilt trip. It's a REASON to do something.

But you place a higher priority on every person owning any weapon they want with zero restrictions over the lives of children. That says something significant about the quality of your character.

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 Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 15 min barefoot2626 1,520
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... 4 hr payme 4
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... Tue JohnInLa 234
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
More from around the web