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.

Equinsu ocha

Dundalk, MD

#7020 Sep 17, 2013
If Obama had a son would he look just like Aaron Alexis?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7021 Sep 17, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL..Everyone who doesn't agree with you view is an extremist. You can avoid the truth all you like but everyone sees right through you socialist mindset. The fact is the 2nd Amendment is view by your party as idiotic and you partly agree with it but you would never stand against them.
More of your vivid imagination.

I do not believe anyone who disagrees with me is an extremist. But if your view is that anyone should have unlimited access to any weapon they want without any regulation, then you are FAR outside the American mainstream and are, by definition, an extremist.

I do not have a socialist mindset. Nothing I believe is socialist.

I disagree with my party on many issues.

Again, another 100% fact-free post. Why don't you try to address what I actually say sometime instead of fabricating positions to argue with?

Or isn't your position strong enough to do that? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7022 Sep 17, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO...Where is the lie?
Look, the leftist idea of gun control has FAILED and you can't acknowledge that. It certainly didn't work in D.C., LA or Chicago.
You misrepresent my position based on your imagination rather than what I've actually said. IOW - you are lying about my position.

Everything you've said about my position is a lie. They're listed in the previous post and in post #6961 for your reference.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7023 Sep 17, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Guns are not permitted there or any other federal installation, this isn't something new.
Yet there is armed security at the perimeter and this guy got in with guns. How did that happen? Sounds like armed guards don't keep adults safe, much less kids. Still think armed guards in schools is the solution to school shootings?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7024 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Unless you are part of the base security detail or police, you are NOT allowed to carry there, or anywhere else in DC for that matter.
The shooter carried though, didn't he?

I guess that proves that a single location or municipality or even state with gun regulation isn't going to work. I guess that proves why we need national standards.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7025 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And your continued denial doesn't mean a damn thing. Your own words condemn you.
If that was true, you'd have no trouble making your case.

But you've never done that. In fact, you have to distort my position to even try to make your case.

If my position is so weak, why do you have to lie about it?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7026 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in every building there isn't. Have you ever been there? Didn't think so. I have.
I haven't been there. It's a secure military facility, correct? Is the perimeter secured? Are there armed guards at the perimeter?

How about Fort Hood? Isn't that also a secure military facility?

If people aren't safe from being shot on secure military facilities, then obviously the solution lies in other types of gun safety regulations - comprehensive national laws to regulate purchase and ownership of firearms.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7027 Sep 17, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban!
_
Time after time, public murder sprees occur in “gun-free zones”- public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.
Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/...
Thanks Slick Willy!
My understanding from men who have served in the military going back to Vietnam was that it's always been military policy that personnel outside combat zones weren't armed unless they were on duty (security, standing watch, etc.) Military personnel weren't routinely armed and didn't even have immediate access to weapons going way back, long before Clinton.

And Bill Clinton was inaugurated on January 20, 1993. The regulation you refer to was implemented in March 12, 1993. Given the speed with which the government prepares and writes new regulations, I seriously doubt that Clinton was responsible for ordering or preparing that directive during his first 6 weeks in office.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7028 Sep 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been there. It's a secure military facility, correct? Is the perimeter secured? Are there armed guards at the perimeter?
How about Fort Hood? Isn't that also a secure military facility?
If people aren't safe from being shot on secure military facilities, then obviously the solution lies in other types of gun safety regulations - comprehensive national laws to regulate purchase and ownership of firearms.
Thank you Comrade Stalin. Let's not worry about all of those criminals/psychos out there who will just find a new and better way to do what they desire. We need to regulate and restrict all of the honest law abiding citizens of this country. That's the ticket, eh?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7029 Sep 17, 2013
Q - What do Nidal Hassan and Aaron Alexis have in common?

A - They both lived in Texas where virtually ANYONE can get a gun.

When the gunners get their way and there are virtually no restrictions on selling, buying or owning firearms, people who should never have access to guns get them.

So I'll ask our pro-gun crowd - what's the solution to preventing mentally unstable people from getting guns? How do you weed them out without infringing on the rights of so-called "law abiding citizens?"

Rather than shooting down any and every suggestion from those of us interested in keeping our fellow citizens safe, why don't you say what YOU propose to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

Or is the occasional mass shooting just the price we have to pay for our 2nd Amendment?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7030 Sep 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was true, you'd have no trouble making your case.
But you've never done that. In fact, you have to distort my position to even try to make your case.
If my position is so weak, why do you have to lie about it?
My case has been made and closed, you have yet to refute a single thing I have stated, and I haven't lied about a single thing. YOU, on the other hand, have been caught in no less than THREE lies in response to my posts alone, let alone others.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7031 Sep 17, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban!
_
Time after time, public murder sprees occur in “gun-free zones”- public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.
Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/...
Thanks Slick Willy!
No - Thanks George HW Bush.

The regulation your source cites was implemented in a policy that originated in the Bush Defense Department. Directive 5210.56 was issued in February of 1992 - almost a year before Bill Clinton became President.

Keep trying.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7032 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
My case has been made and closed, you have yet to refute a single thing I have stated, and I haven't lied about a single thing. YOU, on the other hand, have been caught in no less than THREE lies in response to my posts alone, let alone others.
What an interesting memory you have.

Here's what has actually happened in the posts we're talking about. You claimed that people can kill with tire irons, pipes, pens, pencils, etc. I pointed out that the number of killings with those things are miniscule compared to 32,000 annual deaths from guns because guns are much more lethal. Then you quibbled over the term "lethality" and totally abandoned the core of the argument.

Why? Because you can't refute the fact that exponentially more people are killed with guns and when guns are used death is exponentially more likely.

So you quibble over terms and when I call you out on it, you turn back to your tired bullshit lie that I haven't refuted what you said (when I clearly did) and that I've been caught in lies (when I never have).

Keep trying, Sparky. Maybe one day you'll win an argument outside of your own mind. LOL!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7033 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to talk apples to apples, compare ACCIDENTAL shooting deaths to vehicle accidents.
I count the number of dead who have bullet holes in them.

32,000+

I don't have to pretend someone who goes into a building with an AR-15 could have done the same thing driving a Volkswagen.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7034 Sep 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
What an interesting memory you have.
Here's what has actually happened in the posts we're talking about. You claimed that people can kill with tire irons, pipes, pens, pencils, etc. I pointed out that the number of killings with those things are miniscule compared to 32,000 annual deaths from guns because guns are much more lethal. Then you quibbled over the term "lethality" and totally abandoned the core of the argument.
Why? Because you can't refute the fact that exponentially more people are killed with guns and when guns are used death is exponentially more likely.
So you quibble over terms and when I call you out on it, you turn back to your tired bullshit lie that I haven't refuted what you said (when I clearly did) and that I've been caught in lies (when I never have).
Keep trying, Sparky. Maybe one day you'll win an argument outside of your own mind. LOL!
That is because the "core" of your argument.....the 32,000 deaths by firearms..... is a bullshit argument. The majority of that number (19,000+) is suicides. It also includes self-defense shooting by civilians as well as police. Less than 40% of that number (12,664) is murders. So your "core" is specious at best, disengenuous at least.

And my response was in response to your post where you INCORRECTLY stated that anything that can be used to kill is already regulated, which I proved was misleading on your part as well. Hell.....it was only misleading, it was WRONG.

Keep flailing, libtard. It is quite comical.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7035 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
As I said before....this was another PERFECT example on how gun-free/disarmed-victim zones GET PEOPLE KILLED.
It's a perfect example of how someone can walk into a building with an AR-15 and you would still insist it wasn't the killer's fault, it was the liberal's fault.

That the gun free zone killed everyone, not the guy with the AR-15.

Even when the building was crawling with armed guards.

And you would continue to insist we need more people with more AR-15s.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7036 Sep 17, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep trying, Sparky. Maybe one day you'll win an argument outside of your own mind. LOL!
And the fact that your argument can't hold water only continues to show your......say it with me......WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Show inform the group. Which of your proposals could have prevented this shooting at the Wash Navy Yard? And be specific.
(this oughta be good....snicker)

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7037 Sep 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I count the number of dead who have bullet holes in them.
32,000+
I don't have to pretend someone who goes into a building with an AR-15 could have done the same thing driving a Volkswagen.
And your willful ignorance is legendary. Wallow in it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7038 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because the "core" of your argument.....the 32,000 deaths by firearms..... is a bullshit argument.
It isn't bull shit to the families of the 32,000 dead.

And isn't bullshit to the dozen families of the people killed by the gun gnutter yesterday.

And the guy who sold him that AR-15 is probably saying to himself: it's the liberal's fault for making DC a "gun free zone".

Like you, he is a lying *t.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7039 Sep 17, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because the "core" of your argument.....the 32,000 deaths by firearms..... is a bullshit argument. The majority of that number (19,000+) is suicides. It also includes self-defense shooting by civilians as well as police. Less than 40% of that number (12,664) is murders. So your "core" is specious at best, disengenuous at least.
And my response was in response to your post where you INCORRECTLY stated that anything that can be used to kill is already regulated, which I proved was misleading on your part as well. Hell.....it was only misleading, it was WRONG.
Keep flailing, libtard. It is quite comical.
Everything that kills at the rate of guns has certainly been regulated. Your argument was an avoidance of that fact, not a refutation of it.

Come back when you can be serious and debate like an adult.

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 Supreme Court Continues to Reschedule Concealed... 10 hr AmPieJam UncleSam 3
News Mass shooters tend to be domestic abusers first Jun 20 Jagermann 2
News GOP House hopeful says more in Congress should ... Jun 16 Red Crosse 3
Former University Professor Suggests the NRA Is... Jun 15 FormerParatrooper 5
News 2nd Amendment: Good Enough for Kim Kardashian, ... Jun 13 Billyball 4
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 3 Grecian Formula 19 75
News New Thermal Scope Offers Amazing Night Vision Jun 2 OwenJames 1
More from around the web