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.

Read more

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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4493 Jun 18, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LOL! Nothing like a little hysterical over-the-top paranoid rhetoric to establish your credibility on the issue.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4494 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.
Right. Because you and your AK have a prayer against Apaches and Abrams.

Be serious.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4495 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
BULLSHIT!

I place a higher priority on people being able to protect their kids from mass murderers with an effective weapon instead of a dumbass Gun-Free Zone sign. Restricting the law-abidiong from exercising their right to protect themselves with an effective weapon is what led to the slaughter of those kids at Sandy Hook. GUN FREE ZONES GET PEOPLE KILLED!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4496 Jun 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
BULLSHIT!
I place a higher priority on people being able to protect their kids from mass murderers with an effective weapon instead of a dumbass Gun-Free Zone sign. Restricting the law-abidiong from exercising their right to protect themselves with an effective weapon is what led to the slaughter of those kids at Sandy Hook. GUN FREE ZONES GET PEOPLE KILLED!
If you cared about kids being shot, you'd offer some solutions to the problem instead of accusing those of us who do of using "guilt trips."
Gosnell joked

Copenhagen, Denmark

#4498 Jun 18, 2013
.
.
.

If you cared about kids being shot, you'd offer some solutions to the problem instead of accusing those of us who do of using "guilt trips."

.
.
.
.

Gosnell snipped the neck of one born at 30 weeks,

he joked that it was big enough to

.
.

"walk to the bus stop."

.
.
.
.

..........

big enough to

"walk to the bus stop."

"get it"

LOL,

ROTFLMAO

..........

big enough to "walk to the bus stop."

LOL, ROTFL, LMAO,LOL, ROTFL, LMAO,LOL, ROTFL, LMAO,LOL, ROTFL, LMAO,LOL, ROTFL, LMAO,

LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LO L,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL, LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,

Yeah baby!

..........

.
.

If you cared about kids being murdered, you'd offer some solutions to the problem instead of accusing those of us who do of using "guilt trips."

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4499 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I didn't go to the rally. Why would I?
I see.
So you do not have the courage of your claimed convictions.

We already knew that.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4500 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Describe just HOW limiting the capacity of your fellow citizens to defend themselves is "reasonable".

Explain WHAT the purpose of background checks is.

No. I am not in camp. I wish I was tho. Oh well, September will be here soon enough.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4501 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
On page 13?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4502 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?
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Just so you know Dan.^That^ too was NOT an argument, straight up or strawman. It was merely questions posed to you so that I could clarify just how far your need to limit what I possess, extends.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4503 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You have REPEATEDLY stated that you intend to limit how much ammo one can possess. That limit, placed by you, also limits the weapon.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4504 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"with zero restrictions over the lives of children."
WTF?^That^ "says something significant about the quality of your character."

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4505 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So you do not have the courage of your claimed convictions.
We already knew that.
LOL! It's actually consistent with my conviction not to knowingly place myself in dangerous situations.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4506 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Describe just HOW limiting the capacity of your fellow citizens to defend themselves is "reasonable".
Explain WHAT the purpose of background checks is.
No. I am not in camp. I wish I was tho. Oh well, September will be here soon enough.
LOL! ANOTHER strawman?

I have never advocated anything that would limit anyone's capacity for self-defense.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4507 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
On page 13?
Nope.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4508 Jun 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cared about kids being shot, you'd offer some solutions to the problem instead of accusing those of us who do of using "guilt trips."
We HAVE offered solutions. You do not like them because you are a wuss. You lack the courage of your convictions, and the intestinal fortitude to defend those kids with some "eye for an eye" treatment. You talk through your hat Washichu.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4509 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
Just so you know Dan.^That^ too was NOT an argument, straight up or strawman. It was merely questions posed to you so that I could clarify just how far your need to limit what I possess, extends.
Let me explain - the assumption that I want to limit what you can possess IS your strawman argument.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4510 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
You have REPEATEDLY stated that you intend to limit how much ammo one can possess. That limit, placed by you, also limits the weapon.
Sorry, I haven't.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4511 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"with zero restrictions over the lives of children."
WTF?^That^ "says something significant about the quality of your character."
LOL! Obviously you misunderstood the statement.

Or you intentionally distorted it.

Either way - you're wrong.

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
Suspect in Arizona Shooting Spree a White Supre... 3 hr Truth and Facts 50
News Concealed weapons law costing Idaho colleges $3... 3 hr The real zeke 51
News New and Expanded Online Resource Details Fatal ... 13 hr payme 12
News Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) Wed CTM 12,176
News US considers banning type of popular rifle ammu... Wed Cat74 137
News If not Congress, Obama should reject bill on co... Tue Denny CranesPlace 23
Obama to ban AR-15 bullets Mar 23 Denny CranesPlace 24
More from around the web