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.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#1535 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of repeat offenders does not mean we put criminals right back on the street. People serve their full sentences, are released, then offend again.
I agree that we need to reform how we deal with nonviolent crime.
We already have regulations and restrictions on the First Amendment.
I do not believe a comprehensive background check system would punish you or restrict your rights. I do not believe that tracking guns, ammunition, and explosives would punish you or restrict your rights.
In answer to your final question....YES I do. If I have committed no crime and am a law abiding citizen why should I be treated like a criminal for exercising my constitutional rights? The background check system can and has been abused to deny individuals their constitutional rights. Here's an example of how it is abused; a friend of mine is retired military and after leaving the military he settled in a state that is unfriendly to gun owners. He went to purchase a new handgun in that state and after almost two months of waiting for the paperwork to process he was denied because they found a DUI arrest on his record from 23 years earlier. Please note that I said DUI "arrest", he was not convicted when he went to court but the arrest is still on his record. After spending a great deal of time and money he got the arrest expunged from his record. Seems a shame that he had to go through all of that even after being found not guilty. He has since moved to another state. If the state is intent on disarming the people it will use ANY excuse and abuse the law to prevent the sale of a firearm including an unrelated arrest for a nonviolent crime that is a quarter century old with a not guilty verdict. YOUR intent when we grant the government the power to do things like this does not necessarily equate to the intent of the government and once the government has that kind of power the cat is out of the bag and will be very difficult to contain from that point on.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1536 Apr 27, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Then stop trying to insult my intelligence by just repeating the tired old unfounded arguments made by anti rights groups for years before you were even born. Every gun law made promised to stop crime. NON have worked. Yet here you are with the same old drivel. We have heard all this crap before and history continues to prove it to be crap. You can keep selling but no ones buying it anymore.
Fcuking A.

This guy is just another ignorant control freak.

Well said ,by the way.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1537 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say they were justified or self-defense. 60 percent of gun deaths are from suicides, compared with 37 percent for homicides.
I am pro-common-sense and pro-what-works.
Stalin ,Hitler and Mao were " pro-what-works ".

I am pro-Liberty.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#1538 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
How do taggants in explosives abrogate the rights of people who have committed no crime?
I don't believe I've even addressed the taggants issue. I don't believe that they are of much use other than determining where the explosive was obtained. They may be semi-useful after the fact but they do nothing to prevent someone from making a bomb. Do they violate the rights of law abiding citizens? I really don't see how they would but here again, that depends on how the government uses them.......doesn't it?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1539 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
You make prison sound like a vacation. I don't think that's the case or people wouldn't try to avoid it.
Restricting rehabilitation services to inmates you make the recidivism problem worse.
The brothers in da hood ain't going to get out of prison and start making furniture even if we had a furniture industry left in this country which we do not.

We do not have enough well paying jobs for the law abiding much less for the north side Latinos.

You better go back to your liberal text books and come up with another feel good bombshell that's is really a dud.
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1540 Apr 27, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>In answer to your final question....YES I do. If I have committed no crime and am a law abiding citizen why should I be treated like a criminal for exercising my constitutional rights? The background check system can and has been abused to deny individuals their constitutional rights. Here's an example of how it is abused; a friend of mine is retired military and after leaving the military he settled in a state that is unfriendly to gun owners. He went to purchase a new handgun in that state and after almost two months of waiting for the paperwork to process he was denied because they found a DUI arrest on his record from 23 years earlier. Please note that I said DUI "arrest", he was not convicted when he went to court but the arrest is still on his record. After spending a great deal of time and money he got the arrest expunged from his record. Seems a shame that he had to go through all of that even after being found not guilty. He has since moved to another state. If the state is intent on disarming the people it will use ANY excuse and abuse the law to prevent the sale of a firearm including an unrelated arrest for a nonviolent crime that is a quarter century old with a not guilty verdict. YOUR intent when we grant the government the power to do things like this does not necessarily equate to the intent of the government and once the government has that kind of power the cat is out of the bag and will be very difficult to contain from that point on.
A background check doesn't treat you like a criminal unless you are a criminal. At worst it is a minor inconvenience for the law abiding citizen.

There is no evidence that the state wants to disarm citizens.
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1541 Apr 27, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe I've even addressed the taggants issue. I don't believe that they are of much use other than determining where the explosive was obtained. They may be semi-useful after the fact but they do nothing to prevent someone from making a bomb. Do they violate the rights of law abiding citizens? I really don't see how they would but here again, that depends on how the government uses them.......doesn't it?
You responded to a post where I was specifically addressing the taggant issue.

Taggants prevent people from making bombs the same way that the threat of punishment prevents people from making bombs.
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1542 Apr 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Stalin ,Hitler and Mao were " pro-what-works ".
I am pro-Liberty.
We are all pro-liberty.
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1543 Apr 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>The brothers in da hood ain't going to get out of prison and start making furniture even if we had a furniture industry left in this country which we do not.
We do not have enough well paying jobs for the law abiding much less for the north side Latinos.
You better go back to your liberal text books and come up with another feel good bombshell that's is really a dud.
There is no reason to bring racial prejudice into this discussion.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1544 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no reason to bring racial prejudice into this discussion.
Just what racial prejudice would that be ?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1545 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all pro-liberty.
No your not.

You are a control freak.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#1546 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
A background check doesn't treat you like a criminal unless you are a criminal. At worst it is a minor inconvenience for the law abiding citizen.
There is no evidence that the state wants to disarm citizens.
So now YOU are the judge of what is or is not a "minor inconvenience" for everybody? I cited an example of the background check being abused, do you really think that is the ONLY case? If only one law abiding citizen is abused in this manner....it's too many! Any way you look at it you are demanding that law abiding citizens be inconvenienced, restricted, disenfranchised, or otherwise negatively impacted in an attempt to address criminal behavior. Stop trying to blame all of society for the acts of a few and address those who create the problem. You could eliminate every gun in the country and the violence will still be there as long as the criminals/psychos walk free among us.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1547 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
You responded to a post where I was specifically addressing the taggant issue.
Taggants prevent people from making bombs the same way that the threat of punishment prevents people from making bombs.
Which means no prevention at all.
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1548 Apr 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Just what racial prejudice would that be ?
Prejudicial language.

"brothers in da hood"

"north side Latinos"
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1549 Apr 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>No your not.
You are a control freak.
You are responding with name-calling rather than legitimate debate.

You are arguing based on emotionalism, not evidence.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1550 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
Prejudicial language.
"brothers in da hood"
"north side Latinos"
Wonder does not make white bread like you.

There is nothing prejudice in my writing.

Get off your liberal ass and make a sound argument against what I am saying or FCUK OFF.
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1551 Apr 27, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>So now YOU are the judge of what is or is not a "minor inconvenience" for everybody? I cited an example of the background check being abused, do you really think that is the ONLY case? If only one law abiding citizen is abused in this manner....it's too many! Any way you look at it you are demanding that law abiding citizens be inconvenienced, restricted, disenfranchised, or otherwise negatively impacted in an attempt to address criminal behavior. Stop trying to blame all of society for the acts of a few and address those who create the problem. You could eliminate every gun in the country and the violence will still be there as long as the criminals/psychos walk free among us.
Every law impacts law-abiding citizens. That's what makes us law-abiding, we adjust our behavior to abide by the law.

Does driving the speed limit inconvenience or restrict the behavior of law-abiding citizens? Of course. Does the inability to say whatever you want about other people restrict the behavior of law-abiding citizens? Of course. Do prohibitions on the use of hallucinogenic drugs and prayer instead of medical treatment for children restrict the behavior of law-abiding citizens? Of course.

Every law that exists applies to every citizen, even us law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't being _blamed_ for the acts of speeders, slanderers, peyote users, and child endangerers.

Gun regulations aren't a special case. They are just like all other laws.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1552 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are responding with name-calling rather than legitimate debate.
You are arguing based on emotionalism, not evidence.
Your a liberal control freak that is not name calling it is reality.

Do you own a gun ?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1553 Apr 27, 2013
John W Hardin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are responding with name-calling rather than legitimate debate.
You are arguing based on emotionalism, not evidence.
emotionalism is that a belief in emotion ?
John W Hardin

Belleville, PA

#1554 Apr 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Which means no prevention at all.
So you believe that criminal sanctions on illegal behavior does nothing to prevent illegal behavior?

Then why have any laws at all? Why criminalize anything?

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 Senate votes to allow concealed carry without p... 1 hr Frank Lee Annoid 4
News Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban Apr 22 American Patriot 417
Former University Professor Suggests the NRA Is... Apr 22 Get Out 3
News $25 Million Dollars Pledged To Stop Concealed C... Apr 20 payme 8
News Constitutional carry bills have South Carolina ... Apr 19 Leslie Fish 3
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Apr 19 Fish o watha 69
News Grandfather says three teenage armed robbers 'd... Apr 17 javawhey 41
More from around the web