Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10983 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.

FormerParatroope r

Taylor, MI

#5699 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
1.5 million denied. You don't deny that fact. You just claim that it was unconstitutional to deny guns to criminals. What the hell is that? Sounds like you actually DO believe that everyone should have access to any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation. Why do you continue to deny that belief?
MILLIONS of illegal transactions? Really? Where's the data that supports that conclusion?
And is a law only successful if it eliminates 100% of the behavior it targets? If that's the case, I'll ask the question again(which you've ALWAYS dodged)- why not eliminate ALL laws? Because none of them are 100% successful.
We do know there are many errors in the databases used for background checks. There are people restricted because of clerical errors, and there are many who should be on the lists that are not because of faulty reporting.

Just because people were denied purchase from a dealer, does not mean they did not acquire a firearm by other means.

People who are wrongly denied their right to purchase a firearm are being denied a right. The left, and right does not make any political noise over it. Yet, it is said if we institute voter id laws, we will deny rights to some. Any right denied is a travesty, yet some support the double standard. Why?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5700 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
<quoted text>
Liar.
You obviously flunked your last 8 or 10 mind reading classes. You are doing nothing here but trying to manipulate and massage your bullshit into something believable. I doesn't change the fact the you attempted to tell me what my opinion is and got the snot slapped out of you for it. Everybody else BUT YOU saw it happen clearly before their eyes. Try again Dan the little man.
Tray

Nettleton, MS

#5701 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
1.5 million denied. You don't deny that fact. You just claim that it was unconstitutional to deny guns to criminals. What the hell is that? Sounds like you actually DO believe that everyone should have access to any weapon they want without any oversight or regulation. Why do you continue to deny that belief?
MILLIONS of illegal transactions? Really? Where's the data that supports that conclusion?
And is a law only successful if it eliminates 100% of the behavior it targets? If that's the case, I'll ask the question again(which you've ALWAYS dodged)- why not eliminate ALL laws? Because none of them are 100% successful.
The CDC admits after extensive research NO LINK FOUND to prove gun control laws work or have prevented any crimes. Laws punish not prevent. BIG DIFFERENCE, or are you still reading from your script? If laws stopped crime then there would not be police or prisons. Why do you deny that banning a tool does nothing to change human nature? Guns were banned from planes but yet on 9/11 the largest death toll in history from aircraft happened without guns. You highly underestimate human nature and our ability to adapt. Your simplistic thinking just shows you can't think for yourself but just repeat the same old tired debunked crap spewed by control freaks.

Besara

Des Moines, IA

#5703 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There ARE limits to the First Amendment, genius. How do you not know that?
What limits are those?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5705 Aug 21, 2013
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>What limits are those?
Well, we can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre unless there really is a fire. However we can preach communist take-over policies in an attempt to subjugate the American people as demonstrated by Dan the little man. Much more dangerous than any gun.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5706 Aug 21, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
We do know there are many errors in the databases used for background checks. There are people restricted because of clerical errors, and there are many who should be on the lists that are not because of faulty reporting.
Just because people were denied purchase from a dealer, does not mean they did not acquire a firearm by other means.
People who are wrongly denied their right to purchase a firearm are being denied a right. The left, and right does not make any political noise over it. Yet, it is said if we institute voter id laws, we will deny rights to some. Any right denied is a travesty, yet some support the double standard. Why?
You support what you believe is a double standard. Answer your own question. Why?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5707 Aug 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously flunked your last 8 or 10 mind reading classes. You are doing nothing here but trying to manipulate and massage your bullshit into something believable. I doesn't change the fact the you attempted to tell me what my opinion is and got the snot slapped out of you for it. Everybody else BUT YOU saw it happen clearly before their eyes. Try again Dan the little man.
Snot slapped out of me? LOL! When did that happen.

When you denied it with no proof? When you made an assertion while dodging that actual question?

If you believe there should be restrictions, say what they are. Otherwise it's just hot air coming from you - and hot air can't slap anybody.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5708 Aug 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Do you actually speak the English language? Would you like me to try Spanish, German, or Norwegian? Sorry, I don't know any moronish.
LOL! You can't comprehend plain English and accuse ME of not speaking the language.

You said you support "some limitations" to gun ownership. I replied to that one sentence of yours with the question, "Like what?"

There's no ambiguity there. It's not a foreign language. Why do you dodge the question?

Are you AFRAID?

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5709 Aug 21, 2013
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>What limits are those?
Seriously? You must be joking.

Son, if you don't know this fundamental fact, you have no business expressing your opinion on ANY of the Constitution - including the Second Amendment.

Go educate yourself.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5710 Aug 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Yes there are. But putting a muzzle on YOU and wrapping you in duct tape before tossing you in a rubber room isn't one of them. My suggestion does make way more sense than your background checks though.
I have never claimed that there are no limits, that's your idiotic, stupid, ignorant, lying, leftist, communist, chickenshit propaganda.....not mine. I just think YOUR limits are unconstitutional, and I'm right.
You still haven't answered the question of how background checks are going to have an effect on the MILLIONS of illegal gun transactions that happen EVERY DAY. What is the percentage of guns used in crimes that were obtained by legal means? How will background checks have any effect on anyone who doesn't obtain guns through legal channels? How will background checks have an effect on anyone other than law abiding citizens? You know what the answer is but you will never admit it. You simply think that the honest American should bend over and take it up the wazzu so that you and your leftist pals can feel good about "doing something" even though you know you've accomplished nothing. Try again little man.
You keep denying the question, but you can't articulate any restrictions that you support. Why is that?

Universal background checks are one piece of what needs to be a comprehensive solution. I've never claimed it's a panacea - just that it when you claim that all regulation restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens that you are wrong.

Obviously addressing the deaths of 32,000 Americans every year doesn't come with a single solution. But at least I give a shit about the problem enough to say we need to address it.

You just argue against every proposed solution while presenting NONE yourself. It's almost like you don't give a shit about the deaths of 32,000 of your fellow Americans every single year. Is that the case?
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#5712 Aug 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Well, we can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre unless there really is a fire.
That's not a restriction on the 1st Amendment.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#5713 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? You must be joking.
Son, if you don't know this fundamental fact, you have no business expressing your opinion on ANY of the Constitution - including the Second Amendment.
Go educate yourself.
Why couldn't you come up with an answer instead of a condescending mental fart? Or is that all you have to offer, Tranny Boy?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5714 Aug 21, 2013
Besara wrote:
<quoted text>Why couldn't you come up with an answer instead of a condescending mental fart? Or is that all you have to offer, Tranny Boy?
Given your past insulting posts to me, I was just trying to meet your tone. I guess if you don't like it, you shouldn't have started it, huh?

LOL!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#5715 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You can't comprehend plain English and accuse ME of not speaking the language.
You said you support "some limitations" to gun ownership. I replied to that one sentence of yours with the question, "Like what?"
There's no ambiguity there. It's not a foreign language. Why do you dodge the question?
Are you AFRAID?
LOL!
Pure Hogwash. You're a liar and a fool. I stated very CLEARLY what my view of proper restrictions is. If you can't interpret plain English, don't blame me for it. Maybe you should go back and read the posts again because your question has been answered VERY CLEARLY. Or maybe you should get one of the orderlies at the asylum to read them to you so you can see that your question has been answered VERY CLEARLY.

BTW, did I mention that your question was answered by me in VERY CLEAR terms? I did? Good! Just wanted to make sure you got the message that your question has been answered in VERY CLEARLY. Got it now? Okay, now go back and read the part where I VERY CLEARLY answered your question. If you need help finding it, let me know.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5716 Aug 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
However we can preach communist take-over policies in an attempt to subjugate the American people as demonstrated by Dan the little man. Much more dangerous than any gun.
Communist take-over policies. LMAO!

If it weren't for your strawmen, you'd have nobody to argue with.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5717 Aug 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Pure Hogwash. You're a liar and a fool. I stated very CLEARLY what my view of proper restrictions is. If you can't interpret plain English, don't blame me for it. Maybe you should go back and read the posts again because your question has been answered VERY CLEARLY. Or maybe you should get one of the orderlies at the asylum to read them to you so you can see that your question has been answered VERY CLEARLY.
BTW, did I mention that your question was answered by me in VERY CLEAR terms? I did? Good! Just wanted to make sure you got the message that your question has been answered in VERY CLEARLY. Got it now? Okay, now go back and read the part where I VERY CLEARLY answered your question. If you need help finding it, let me know.
Vague claims that you support some restrictions is not a clear or direct answer.

What specific restrictions do you support?

Why do you keep dodging this answer with diversions and lies?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5718 Aug 21, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
Take that gibberish to the next tea bag rally, they will love your level of ignorance
GFY..."frustrated control freak".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5719 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops, your desperation is showing.
You've never shown an actual lie I've told, and redefining a mistake as a lie is positively desperate. No rational human being uses the definition you're using. LOL!
BTW - my eyes are wide open. Too bad you can't say the same thing in your desperate attempt to accuse me of something I've not done.
ROTFLMAO...riiight

"BTW - my eyes are wide open. Too bad you can't say the same thing in your desperate attempt to accuse me of something I've not done."

I can say the same thing...I can see thru your BS. I never said anything about your eyes. So why isn't that you can complain about others that can't read and comprehend and you can't do it yourself...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5720 Aug 21, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
lie
noun
- a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
So, yeah - if someone doesn't realize what they're saying is false, by DEFINITION, it is not a lie.
Grow up, my desperate friend. If you have to re-define the word "lie" to accuse me of it, then you really have no case at all.
LOL!
Using "half truths" doesn't do you any good liar.

Lie
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4.
the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

If you notice, there is more than one definition and I would venture to say that your source had more than one as well, although you didn't provide it.

"Grow up, my desperate friend. If you have to re-define the word "lie" to accuse me of it, then you really have no case at all."

Thanks for proving my case.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5721 Aug 21, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO...riiight
"BTW - my eyes are wide open. Too bad you can't say the same thing in your desperate attempt to accuse me of something I've not done."
I can say the same thing...I can see thru your BS. I never said anything about your eyes. So why isn't that you can complain about others that can't read and comprehend and you can't do it yourself...?
*sigh*

Let me try to explain in as simple a way as possible:

You said...
Marauder wrote:
One question...does everyone wear blinders in your world...?
To which I reasonably responded, "My eyes are wide open."

See that was a reference to wearing blinders. Blinders go over the eyes. But I'm not wearing blinders - my eyes are wide open and I see clearly. That's why I responded to your "blinders" comment with a reference to "my eyes."

Was that simple enough for your simple mind? Do you understand now?

So why is it that you can complain about others that can't read and comprehend and you can't do it yourself...?

LOL!

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
News U.S. Military's Space in Trump Tower Costs $130... Aug 7 L I G E R 4
News GW husband, wife face charges in counterfeit case Jul '17 lch2105 2
News Scene & Heard: VP Mike Pence on Sanibel Jul '17 Anthony wright 2
News Illinois man pleads not guilty to threatening t... Jun '17 HOLLA 1
News Secret Service investigating effigy of Presiden... (Jan '10) Jun '17 Trumpenstein bank... 44
News Secret Service relaxes marijuana policy in bid ... Jun '17 RushFan666 6
News Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May '17 Belinda 1
More from around the web