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
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5643 Aug 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Hardly.
Sorry, but no matter how much you want it to, making a mistake is not a lie. I confused you and Marauder because you sound so much alike.
And like a person of integrity, I apologized for my mistake when a realized it.
Keep trying, but you won't find any lies I've told. Nobody ever has.
Nobody.
Ever.
Because there aren't any.
"And like a person of integrity, I apologized for my mistake when a realized it."

That's an interesting way to put it and does explain a lot about you. So basically, even when someone does present you with proof of a fact, unless YOU "realize it", it still isn't fact in your eyes. So you can pick and choose proof...facts...and your own reality.

One question...does everyone wear blinders in your world...?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5644 Aug 19, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
Your apology only came after you repeatedly berated the original poster. Integrity? Hardly. Your childish nature leaves no room for integrity, but keep trying.
Since you value your opinions as facts there is no use in pointing out the lies that you post.
But please continue on with your circular logic to defend your positions, it's amusing to watch.
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not Marauder.
I never said you were Marauder, now did I? In fact I said the opposite - I said I CONFUSED you with Marauder, didn't I?

With that sort of reading comprehension skill, it's no wonder you believe objectively false things.
Aphelion wrote:
Nor have "I" ever linked articles from the individuals you and the original poster were referring. It appears that not only do you lie but you appear to be delusional as well.
You sure?

You might want to rethink that before you call SOMEBODY ELSE delusional.

Or a liar.
Aphelion wrote:
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.
Do you honestly not remember posting this...

...or are you LYING?
Aphelion wrote:
Since you value your opinions as facts there is no use in pointing out the lies that you post.
So is this your excuse for not finding even a SINGLE lie I've supposedly told?

Because you haven't.

Just like everyone else who has made that accusation.

Every.

Single.

Person.

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5645 Aug 19, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
Nor have "I" ever linked articles from the individuals you and the original poster were referring. It appears that not only do you lie but you appear to be delusional as well.
Wait...

...what's this?
Aphelion wrote:
Among Kleck’s findings:
For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.
Results of Kleck’s Findings
Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey findings provided a strong argument for concealed carry laws and keeping guns in the home for self-defense purposes. It also provided a counter argument to other surveys at the time which claimed that keeping guns for the purpose of self-defense was inadvisable due to their overall danger to the gun owner and his family members.
Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying:“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/G...
LMAO!

Liar.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5646 Aug 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"I responded by saying I simply observed his behavior. You asked where I did that and accused me of lying. I said I observe his behavior every time he posts."
So I'm still challenging your ability to "observe" anyone's "behavior" in an internet forum. Please explain this uncanny ability. I still say you're lying.
"You continuously call me a liar but haven't presented even a single lie I've told."
When the shoe fits.... A previous post of mine showed two of your lies. This one has another...unless you can somehow prove this ability to "observe someone's behavior" thru a forum. That should prove very interesting.
Typing words is a behavior. Making statements is a behavior. Making assertions about the world is a behavior. Making claims about what is true is a behavior.

And Squach [sic] has made plenty of delusional statements, assertions, and claims.

How do you not comprehend this? Are you really this ignorant?

BTW - I await your apology for accusing me of lying when it was YOU who was confused.

LOL!...at you.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5647 Aug 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Way to man up there "Dan the Man"...
Thanks.

It's what people of integrity do.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5650 Aug 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"And like a person of integrity, I apologized for my mistake when a realized it."
That's an interesting way to put it and does explain a lot about you. So basically, even when someone does present you with proof of a fact, unless YOU "realize it", it still isn't fact in your eyes. So you can pick and choose proof...facts...and your own reality.
One question...does everyone wear blinders in your world...?
You didn't present me with proof. You made an assertion, and given your sketchy relationship with the truth, that's not even in the same universe as proof.

I went and looked and found the facts myself. And when I saw I was wrong I admitted it and apologized.

But it's very big of you to respond to my apology with a childish personal attack. Kind of reveals the quality of your character, doesn't it? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5654 Aug 19, 2013
Right.

Laws don't reduce crime.

They serve no purpose at all.

And serious people advocate for the elimination of all laws.

Blah.

Blah.

Blah.

Grow the hell up, nitwit.
Bella Donna

Hatfield, UK

#5655 Aug 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Right.
Laws don't reduce crime.
They serve no purpose at all.
And serious people advocate for the elimination of all laws.
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.
Grow the hell up, nitwit.
WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?

Are YOU afraid of the answer to THAT question?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5656 Aug 19, 2013
Bella Donna wrote:
<quoted text>
You want truth, do you?
Well, WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?
Bella Donna wrote:
<quoted text>
WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?
Are YOU afraid of the answer to THAT question?
We already had this argument, moron. Back in May, remember?
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Be serious?
Okay, I'll be serious: WHEN was the last time that any man-made law ever stopped anything from happening?
Run along, troll. I already decimated this dipshit argument and there's no reason to do it again.

LOL!
Bella Donna

London, UK

#5657 Aug 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
We already had this argument, moron. Back in May, remember?
<quoted text>
Run along, troll. I already decimated this dipshit argument and there's no reason to do it again.
LOL!
WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?

Are YOU afraid of the answer to THAT question?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5658 Aug 20, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Right.
Laws don't reduce crime.
They serve no purpose at all.
And serious people advocate for the elimination of all laws.
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.
Grow the hell up, nitwit.
Serious people advocate for laws that clamp down on the lawless while having no effect on the honest law abiding citizen. Grow the hell up, nitwit.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5659 Aug 20, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>
Serious people advocate for laws that clamp down on the lawless while having no effect on the honest law abiding citizen. Grow the hell up, nitwit.
Like background checks. They do not prohibit law-abiding citizens from buying guns, but they do succeed at making it much harder for a criminal to get a firearm.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5660 Aug 20, 2013
Bella Donna wrote:
<quoted text>
You want truth, do you?
Well, WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?
Bella Donna wrote:
<quoted text>
WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?
Are YOU afraid of the answer to THAT question?
Bella Donna wrote:
<quoted text>
WHEN was the last time that ANY man-made law stopped anything from happening?
Are YOU afraid of the answer to THAT question?
There's a retarded echo in here.

LOL!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5662 Aug 20, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Like background checks. They do not prohibit law-abiding citizens from buying guns, but they do succeed at making it much harder for a criminal to get a firearm.
But they DO have an effect on the law abiding citizen. That law abiding citizen is REQUIRED to submit to something in order to exercise a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. That law abiding citizen should be REQUIRED to do nothing more than what he has already done.....abided by the law. Requiring the law abiding to submit to anything in order to be able to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution is an effect.....an undesirable and probably unconstitutional effect. Background checks are nothing more than a custom built opportunity for government to abuse its power. Do you REALLY think criminals obtain their weapons from a source that requires background checks??? If so, you are even more naive and blind to reality than I first suspected.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5663 Aug 20, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>But they DO have an effect on the law abiding citizen. That law abiding citizen is REQUIRED to submit to something in order to exercise a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. That law abiding citizen should be REQUIRED to do nothing more than what he has already done.....abided by the law. Requiring the law abiding to submit to anything in order to be able to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution is an effect.....an undesirable and probably unconstitutional effect. Background checks are nothing more than a custom built opportunity for government to abuse its power. Do you REALLY think criminals obtain their weapons from a source that requires background checks??? If so, you are even more naive and blind to reality than I first suspected.
As long as you believe that everyone is entitled to own any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation whatsoever, it's impossible to hold a rational conversation with you.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5664 Aug 20, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you believe that everyone is entitled to own any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation whatsoever, it's impossible to hold a rational conversation with you.
Why do you insist on putting words in the mouths of others? Not only is it rude it makes you look like a knee-jerk reactionary fool. I said no such thing and you know it. What I said was that laws enacted to control the lawless should have no effect on the law abiding. Obviously a concept that is totally alien to you. Also one can't help but notice that you have completely ignored my question about where criminals obtain their weapons and how background checks will have any effect at all on the black market. The only people who will be inconvenienced or denied are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who submit to a background check while the criminals continue obtaining their guns illegally, business as usual. Criminals don't obtain their weapons through legal means where background checks are required......why would they? They never have in the past.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5665 Aug 20, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you insist on putting words in the mouths of others? Not only is it rude it makes you look like a knee-jerk reactionary fool. I said no such thing and you know it.
You've said as much. Your posts indicate that's what you believe.

So why don't you just clear it up right now? Do you support everyone owning any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation?

Bet you'll dodge it.

LMAO!
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5666 Aug 20, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You've said as much. Your posts indicate that's what you believe.
So why don't you just clear it up right now? Do you support everyone owning any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation?
Bet you'll dodge it.
LMAO!
Like you dodged their questions. Hypocrite!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5669 Aug 20, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Like you dodged their questions. Hypocrite!
Find those lies I told yet?

No?

I didn't think so.

LMAO!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5670 Aug 20, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You've said as much. Your posts indicate that's what you believe.
So why don't you just clear it up right now? Do you support everyone owning any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation?
Bet you'll dodge it.
LMAO!
If you had paid attention, I've told you and others on this thread numerous times. The 2nd amendment covers all weapons up to and including the individual fire arms carried by the foot soldier. Plain and simple. I have NEVER said or implied anything else no matter what your erroneous mind reading tells you. It has also been ruled By the SCOTUS to be an INDIVIDUAL right, another indicator that it covers INDIVIDUAL arms. No one is talking about rocket launchers and atomic bombs as you hysterical gun grabbers would like the uninformed to believe. According to the wording of the constitution, the purpose of NOT INFRINGING on the right of the people to keep and bear arms it so there will always be an organized militia and a large unorganized militia. Should those militia ever be called to arms the folks who answer will be expected to fill the role of an individual foot soldier. It's all pretty clear to me. Not my fault you live in constant confusion.

And guess what, you've dodged my question once again. I guess I can conclude that you have no intelligent answer and chalk it up as another of your many defeats.

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.

US Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Secret Service Panel: Build Bigger Fence Around... Dec 19 Sunshine 2
Street Artist SABO Blasts Lena Dunham, Bill Cli... Dec 8 Anonymous 1
Guard fired after Obama visit: I'm not a convict Nov '14 SirPrize 6
Gainer Mooted as Next Secret Service Director Nov '14 Le Jimbo 25
Police: Obama faced threats during Indiana visit Oct '14 nightcruiser49 1
Secret Service director faces grilling over sec... Oct '14 Mr Johnson 139
Another Secret Service SNAFU: Fake congressman ... Oct '14 Bama Yankee 1
More from around the web