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

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5987 Aug 26, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Who would administer competency testing? How often would one need to prove competency?
Who would be best to do that?

Annually.
FormerParatrooper wrote:
Would you consider competency testing for voting? We know about hanging chads and mis votes.
Interesting that you make that comparison. Because all over the country conservatives are working to put all sorts of restrictions on the right to vote - gov't issued voter ID, ending early voting, ending same-day voting, ending Sunday voting, and so on.

So a Constitutional right where there's virtually no evidence of abuse and where a national election has never been swayed by in-person voter fraud, and conservatives are adding all sorts of restrictions.

But a Constitutional right where there is not only abuse, but that abuse costs the lives of 32,000 Americans every year - and the right shrieks at even the mention of any restrictions. Some even claim the existing regulations on guns are un-Constitutional.

Can you explain that? Because it seems enormously hypocritical to me.
FormerParatrooper wrote:
My idea?
Firearms training in every school, every grade. Not saying give children firearms, I am saying safety training. The NRA has the Eddie Eagle program, it reinforces that firearms are not toys and if one is found to tell an adult. I have issues with the NRA, this is a program I support.
Then we have gangsta rap. 1st Amendment says it is free speech. The problem is it glorifies murder, drugs, racism and abuse of women. It is part of the problem in the criminal subculture. There is little we can about it, yet it is a contributor to the violence.
If we teach sex education to grade schoolers, we sure can teach firearm safety for the same reason, educating and protecting them.
Keep in mind, what ever can be agreed upon to negate the negligent incidents, murders and unjustified uses of firearms, has to be able to be applied to every other right we have. No right is more or less important than another, and each must be treated equally.
I don't have a problem with gun safety training for kids. I think targeting "gangsta rap" is a red herring.

No right is more or less important, but we have restrictions on the 1st Amendment and conservatives are actively working to place restrictions on voting, so why is the 2nd Amendment off limits on the right?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5988 Aug 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...I've lost track of all your fictional accusations."
No, you've told so many lie's, you have lost track of which ones I'm talking about. But that's ok, we haven't.
No, you've made so many false accusations that I've lost track of them.

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5989 Aug 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
BS liar...there's another one. YOU even responded to that very post...Now let's see to tap dance again.
Post #5805
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...
And just incase you can’t figure out how to get there, here’s the link again;
“Biden to NRA: We ‘don’t have the time’ to prosecute gun buyers who lie on background checks”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nr...
And incase you want to tap dance and say you didn’t see it or read it…don’t bother. You responded to that very post as follows;
Post #5817
“I post my sources.
Why don't you try actually checking before you make these sorts of bullshit allegations?”
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...
I responded to the first sentence of that post. I didn't read the rest of it. Sorry.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5990 Aug 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm clever enough to not post BS lies the way you do...and get caught at it.
"You don't have what it takes to pull it off."
ROTFLMAO...to late liar...I already have.
Really?

I'll tell you what - after you point out a single lie I've actually told - not opinions you disagree with, not statements where I simply make mistakes - then I'll start responding to these bullshit posts.

Until then, knock yourself out. But I'm done wasting my time on your mendacious accusations.

Good day.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#5991 Aug 26, 2013
99.8% of patrol cops say removing their firearms would put their lives in danger while doing their job. They say the firearm as a deterrent saves their lives daily when encountering criminals, even when the criminal is armed they tend to realize an encounter with an armed officer could cost them their life. Just having the gun lets criminals know they mean business and they are not defenseless. If it works for cops who encounter criminals then why not citizens who encounter criminals?
A fake cop in New Mexico picked the wrong people to pull over this week when he chose to stop an unmarked truck with two state police officers inside.
John Shelton, 26, allegedly armed with a pistol on his hip and his experience as an emergency medical tech and a firefighter, detained two undercover officers traveling on a state highway in San Miguel County and was eventually arrested for impersonating an officer.
Shelton allegedly tried to detain the undercover agents for speeding, which is definitely a function of law enforcement. And because it was an alleged crime committed in the presence of two actual officers, Shelton was rightly arrested.
Even though the fake cop was armed he came along peacefully when faced with real cops who were armed. The real cops say they believe they could not have taken him if they had been unarmed. Criminals only respect the badge when backed up with a gun to enforce it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5992 Aug 26, 2013
Tray wrote:
If it works for cops who encounter criminals then why not citizens who encounter criminals?
If it works for doctors to prescribe medications to treat diseases then why not citizens?

If it works for pilots to haul people across the country and the world then why not citizens?

If it works for engineers to design bridges then why not citizens?

If soldiers can go to other countries and kill people then why not citizens who recognize an enemy?

The answer of course it that it's better for everyone's safety if some things are left to professionals with specialized training and expertise.

The average citizen simply doesn't have the same training, expertise, and judgment as cops, as we see every single day in this country when people are killed by accident, by mistake, in the heat of emotion, and due to rank incompetence.
FormerParatroope r

Detroit, MI

#5993 Aug 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Who would be best to do that?
Annually.
<quoted text>
Interesting that you make that comparison. Because all over the country conservatives are working to put all sorts of restrictions on the right to vote - gov't issued voter ID, ending early voting, ending same-day voting, ending Sunday voting, and so on.
So a Constitutional right where there's virtually no evidence of abuse and where a national election has never been swayed by in-person voter fraud, and conservatives are adding all sorts of restrictions.
But a Constitutional right where there is not only abuse, but that abuse costs the lives of 32,000 Americans every year - and the right shrieks at even the mention of any restrictions. Some even claim the existing regulations on guns are un-Constitutional.
Can you explain that? Because it seems enormously hypocritical to me.
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with gun safety training for kids. I think targeting "gangsta rap" is a red herring.
No right is more or less important, but we have restrictions on the 1st Amendment and conservatives are actively working to place restrictions on voting, so why is the 2nd Amendment off limits on the right?
Your 32k number is misleading. It includes justified homicides and criminal on criminal incidents. Not to mention that number has been on the decrease for at least a decade.

The voting comparison is legitimate. The requirement for basic ID is not violating a right. In this day and age, ID is required for about everything we do from casing a check to applying for government benefits. Even required to purchase a firearm. The changes in early voting I don't agree with, just ID.

The music is not a Red Herring, it is part of the culture that exploits and encourages crime. There are studies being done that in my opinion will support my hypothesis.

The efforts to further restrict people who are not part of the problem is a problem. We have a multitude of laws for firearm ownership, most are weakly or not enforced. Creating more laws will not solve the problem.

It is good we have a point of agreement on education.

I do not consider myself to be left or right, common sense is my guide.

Harvard has released a new study, I have briefly looked at it. Have you seen it? Seems the conclusion is high firearm ownership rates are not cause of crime, and Harvard is not considered to be a bastogne of right wingers.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5994 Aug 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Who would be best to do that?
Annually.
<quoted text>
Interesting that you make that comparison. Because all over the country conservatives are working to put all sorts of restrictions on the right to vote - gov't issued voter ID, ending early voting, ending same-day voting, ending Sunday voting, and so on.
So a Constitutional right where there's virtually no evidence of abuse and where a national election has never been swayed by in-person voter fraud, and conservatives are adding all sorts of restrictions.
But a Constitutional right where there is not only abuse, but that abuse costs the lives of 32,000 Americans every year - and the right shrieks at even the mention of any restrictions. Some even claim the existing regulations on guns are un-Constitutional.
Can you explain that? Because it seems enormously hypocritical to me.
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with gun safety training for kids. I think targeting "gangsta rap" is a red herring.
No right is more or less important, but we have restrictions on the 1st Amendment and conservatives are actively working to place restrictions on voting, so why is the 2nd Amendment off limits on the right?
"No right is more or less important, but we have restrictions on the 1st Amendment..."

We have penalties for abuse...there are no laws that can or will restrict free speech. You can yell "fire" in a theater if there is a fire...you can yell "fire" in a theater if there is not a fire because there is no law that restricts it that would force people to have their mouths duct taped to watch a movie. If you do yell "fire" without a fire, then you face penalties for abusing "free speech".

"...and conservatives are actively working to place restrictions on voting,..."

BS...what is wrong with voter ID...? You just said that "No right is more or less important..."...then why would you not support identifying someone who is going to vote...? You want to have positive ID of those that buy a gun do you not...? Well then, why not to vote...? Quit being a hypocrite.

"...so why is the 2nd Amendment off limits on the right?"

Because that's what the Bill of Rights tells the Gov't when it was passed...it's a restriction on the Gov't.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5999 Aug 26, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 32k number is misleading. It includes justified homicides and criminal on criminal incidents. Not to mention that number has been on the decrease for at least a decade.
The voting comparison is legitimate. The requirement for basic ID is not violating a right. In this day and age, ID is required for about everything we do from casing a check to applying for government benefits. Even required to purchase a firearm. The changes in early voting I don't agree with, just ID.
The music is not a Red Herring, it is part of the culture that exploits and encourages crime. There are studies being done that in my opinion will support my hypothesis.
The efforts to further restrict people who are not part of the problem is a problem. We have a multitude of laws for firearm ownership, most are weakly or not enforced. Creating more laws will not solve the problem.
It is good we have a point of agreement on education.
I do not consider myself to be left or right, common sense is my guide.
Harvard has released a new study, I have briefly looked at it. Have you seen it? Seems the conclusion is high firearm ownership rates are not cause of crime, and Harvard is not considered to be a bastogne of right wingers.
Dead Americans are dead Americans. None of them are worth less than the rest. I'm not interested in playing the "they deserved it" or "that death doesn't matter" game. The death of any American matters to me.

And the 32,000 is the 10 year average, so it factors in the decline.

Why implement voter ID when in-person voter fraud almost never happens? It's a solution in search of a problem. Unless, of course, the problem is that you think too many minorities, elderly, and young people vote. Then it's a pretty good solution.

Here's what I'm aware from Harvard:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/opinion/TT2PK...
FormerParatrooper wrote:
I do not consider myself to be left or right, common sense is my guide.
I will accept that at face value and say that we are likely both about the same distance from the political center. I consider myself a pragmatic moderate. I support what the evidence says works, regardless of political ideology. I own guns and enjoy shooting them. I don't support an assault weapons ban. I don't reject concealed carry for qualified individuals. I support armed guards in schools. I support enforcing gun laws already on the books, but recognize that that won't solve the problem so more solutions are needed.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#6000 Aug 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If it works for doctors to prescribe medications to treat diseases then why not citizens?
If it works for pilots to haul people across the country and the world then why not citizens?
If it works for engineers to design bridges then why not citizens?
If soldiers can go to other countries and kill people then why not citizens who recognize an enemy?
The answer of course it that it's better for everyone's safety if some things are left to professionals with specialized training and expertise.
The average citizen simply doesn't have the same training, expertise, and judgment as cops, as we see every single day in this country when people are killed by accident, by mistake, in the heat of emotion, and due to rank incompetence.
But the citizens takes the medication without supervision or a background check to see if they sell drugs or abuse drugs and many drugs are over the counter that anyone can buy without any permission. Pilots are licensed because they carry public passengers. I once owned an ultralight and flew with no training or license as do thousands across the country daily.

A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math.

There are 700,000 physicians in the United States.
There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is 17.1%. This means, that doctors are 9,000 times more deadly than gun owners.

The first bridges built were by average people. Today if I want to build a bridge for my own use I can without a background check or license or any training, just as farmers and land owners do yearly and do a pretty good job of it.

Average people have fought in wars for thousands of years, in fact most tyrants and dictators were overthrown by the average ARMED citizens.(This post by you just proves the need for the Second Amendment). When are these professionals with specialized training and expertise going to be assigned to protect each citizen in this country? Until a doctor is provided to watch your health daily 24/7 then you need to take responsibility for your daily health needs. Criminals operate guns without training and kill just fine. Does It not stand to reason a NON criminal could figure them out? Simple point and click interface. 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. and their owners have never killed anyone. Looks like the public is doing very well without your permission.

When is that "

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6001 Aug 26, 2013
Link didn't go where it should have. Trying again...

Here's what I'm aware of from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-re...
FormerParatroope r

Detroit, MI

#6002 Aug 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Dead Americans are dead Americans. None of them are worth less than the rest. I'm not interested in playing the "they deserved it" or "that death doesn't matter" game. The death of any American matters to me.
And the 32,000 is the 10 year average, so it factors in the decline.
Why implement voter ID when in-person voter fraud almost never happens? It's a solution in search of a problem. Unless, of course, the problem is that you think too many minorities, elderly, and young people vote. Then it's a pretty good solution.
Here's what I'm aware from Harvard:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/opinion/TT2PK...
<quoted text>
I will accept that at face value and say that we are likely both about the same distance from the political center. I consider myself a pragmatic moderate. I support what the evidence says works, regardless of political ideology. I own guns and enjoy shooting them. I don't support an assault weapons ban. I don't reject concealed carry for qualified individuals. I support armed guards in schools. I support enforcing gun laws already on the books, but recognize that that won't solve the problem so more solutions are needed.
What I mean about criminals is the fact we have laws that already address the issue, and that their numbers should not be used to demonize those of us who are responsible. For justified homicides, those numbers should not count because the victims of criminals fought back and won. Yes, they are dead Americans, yet they contributed to their own deaths by their own actions. I see a distinction, I guess you do not. Remember there were several laws they broke in their actions that caused them death.

I guess you are not aware of the dead voters and repeat voters in Illinois? Vote early, vote often and in the same election is an Illinois saying. ID would substantially dent that practice. I encourage EVERYONE who is eligible to vote to do so. I do wish more would take voting more seriously and actually make decisions based on facts and not the letters D or R that follow the name in the ballot. Our rights were paid for in blood, something many have forgotten.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/article/harvard-...

This is from a Libertarian site, I am trying to go to the actual study. Problems with using a mobile device is the limitations of linking and following links to original things.

Glad to know your positions on so called "assault weapons", ccw, and armed guards in schools. We can agree somewhat here.

I do not see the need to enact more laws if we are not enforcing laws properly now. To me that does not make sense. We have groups identified as not being allowed to own firearms for any reason or use because society thinks it is a danger. If they present such grave danger, why are they allowed to remain in society?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#6003 Aug 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Link didn't go where it should have. Trying again...
Here's what I'm aware of from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-re...
Homicide but not murder or even illegal use of a gun in your link. That is like saying there is more cancer in the U.S. because we have better medical services than a third world country. Here more doctors = more cancers found does not equal more cancer because of doctors. If 99.9% of those homicides were committed by cops in their line of work then gun control laws would play no part what so ever. If 99.9% of these "homicides" are self defense than your link is a great argument for the public to be armed. Being as your link does not address ILLEGAL gun use or murder then how is it related to gun control?

"There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."

In fact in your own link this quote proves gun control is not involved. This still falls in the "Boston Bomber being a VICTIM of homicide".

"Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey." Is not fact or real world numbers. There is no way to prove or disprove these numbers. Your link uses the same method they attempt to debunk. Pot meet kettle.

"We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense."

Yet another fudging of numbers by using a state with low gun ownership for victims then claiming victims don't use guns in defense. Also using an age group that is illegal to own a gun nation wide. Of course we would expect low self defense numbers since doing so is illegal in these areas and age groups. Your link is like saying bald people don't buy combs, so no one needs or uses combs when in fact the vast majority of people do use combs.

"Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense."

Also from your link. They describe the majority of gang members and criminal youths then say they get threatened by a gun more often than youths who don't break the law by smoking, drinking underage and answering to a responsible parent. Hmmm, I would also expect criminals and gang members to be threatened by a gun in the hands of police and armed victims.
If anything your link when in context supports victims being armed.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#6004 Aug 26, 2013
"8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”"

Yet also from Dans link. Using data from an anti gun ownership area and claiming citizens don't use guns to defend themselves. Mainly because doing so is illegal in D.C. His link does show criminals don't follow the anti gun laws in D.C. but citizens do. Once again debunking the usefulness of anti gun laws.

WOW your link proves the armed public is safer.
Once again using a site with an agenda and attempting to twist words and fudge numbers proves your need to deceit because you can't defend your stance with the truth. You have no credibility. You are a proven liar again.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#6005 Aug 26, 2013
"8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”"

Hey Dan. just how many criminals when shot go to a hospital and tell the doctor "I was shot trying to rape someone"? I would place a large bet on most criminals in prison today claiming they are innocent. WOW what a credible site you have there.(SARCASM) I love the line" Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen." If you really expect a criminal to report being shot while attacking an armed victim then I have some ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you. Ha ha ha.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6006 Aug 26, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
What I mean about criminals is the fact we have laws that already address the issue, and that their numbers should not be used to demonize those of us who are responsible. For justified homicides, those numbers should not count because the victims of criminals fought back and won. Yes, they are dead Americans, yet they contributed to their own deaths by their own actions. I see a distinction, I guess you do not. Remember there were several laws they broke in their actions that caused them death.
I guess you are not aware of the dead voters and repeat voters in Illinois? Vote early, vote often and in the same election is an Illinois saying. ID would substantially dent that practice. I encourage EVERYONE who is eligible to vote to do so. I do wish more would take voting more seriously and actually make decisions based on facts and not the letters D or R that follow the name in the ballot. Our rights were paid for in blood, something many have forgotten.
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/article/harvard-...
This is from a Libertarian site, I am trying to go to the actual study. Problems with using a mobile device is the limitations of linking and following links to original things.
Glad to know your positions on so called "assault weapons", ccw, and armed guards in schools. We can agree somewhat here.
I do not see the need to enact more laws if we are not enforcing laws properly now. To me that does not make sense. We have groups identified as not being allowed to own firearms for any reason or use because society thinks it is a danger. If they present such grave danger, why are they allowed to remain in society?
I'm not quoting numbers to demonize you. I'm quoting numbers to describe the extent of the problem and why everyone should be concerned about it. Unfortunately all I seem to hear from the pro-gun crowd is reasons why the numbers don't really matter and attempts to minimize the problem - instead of concern about the problem and ideas about how to address it.

I heard about voter REGISTRATION fraud in Illinois, not actual voter fraud. Do you have a link?

As far as everything I've seen on the issue, no state in the union has had any actual in-person voter fraud that has changed the outcome of an election. These efforts to prevent in-person voter fraud are unnecessary. Again - unless the purpose is to suppress the Democratic vote.

The "new" Harvard study your link linked to is from 2006. It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, a law review edited by a conservative/libertarian student group at Harvard Law School and is not "a Harvard study." The standards for publication in a law review are completely different than for peer-reviewed academic journals, since law review articles are not reviewed and approved by veteran experts in their field, but by law students.

Beyond the fact that they're comparing gun laws with the overall homicide rate (and not murder by gun), I've read of problems with their statistical analysis as well. For instance they used a rate of 9 homicides per 1000 where the actual rate was .9/1000 for Luxembourg. Makes you wonder about either their competence or their agenda.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6007 Aug 27, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Dead Americans are dead Americans. None of them are worth less than the rest. I'm not interested in playing the "they deserved it" or "that death doesn't matter" game. The death of any American matters to me.
And the 32,000 is the 10 year average, so it factors in the decline.
Why implement voter ID when in-person voter fraud almost never happens? It's a solution in search of a problem. Unless, of course, the problem is that you think too many minorities, elderly, and young people vote. Then it's a pretty good solution.
Here's what I'm aware from Harvard:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/opinion/TT2PK...
<quoted text>
I will accept that at face value and say that we are likely both about the same distance from the political center. I consider myself a pragmatic moderate. I support what the evidence says works, regardless of political ideology. I own guns and enjoy shooting them. I don't support an assault weapons ban. I don't reject concealed carry for qualified individuals. I support armed guards in schools. I support enforcing gun laws already on the books, but recognize that that won't solve the problem so more solutions are needed.
32,000 deaths which include suicides and police shooting etc. compared to about 270,000,000 privately owned firearms. It should be quite obvious, even to you, that the vast majority of firearms owners are safe and responsible people. How about legislating against that miniscule group who create the problem without restricting or regulating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of those MILLIONS who abide by the law and have done no wrong?
FormerParatroope r

Columbus, OH

#6008 Aug 27, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not quoting numbers to demonize you. I'm quoting numbers to describe the extent of the problem and why everyone should be concerned about it. Unfortunately all I seem to hear from the pro-gun crowd is reasons why the numbers don't really matter and attempts to minimize the problem - instead of concern about the problem and ideas about how to address it.
I heard about voter REGISTRATION fraud in Illinois, not actual voter fraud. Do you have a link?
As far as everything I've seen on the issue, no state in the union has had any actual in-person voter fraud that has changed the outcome of an election. These efforts to prevent in-person voter fraud are unnecessary. Again - unless the purpose is to suppress the Democratic vote.
The "new" Harvard study your link linked to is from 2006. It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, a law review edited by a conservative/libertarian student group at Harvard Law School and is not "a Harvard study." The standards for publication in a law review are completely different than for peer-reviewed academic journals, since law review articles are not reviewed and approved by veteran experts in their field, but by law students.
Beyond the fact that they're comparing gun laws with the overall homicide rate (and not murder by gun), I've read of problems with their statistical analysis as well. For instance they used a rate of 9 homicides per 1000 where the actual rate was .9/1000 for Luxembourg. Makes you wonder about either their competence or their agenda.
I have given you ideas how to minimize the firearm violence. Ideas that do not place the burden on the responsible.

The Harvard study where I found it did not show a date, if the information you supplied is accurate I see the disconnect.

Voter fraud in Illinois is well known. I will get links, as I stated before on a mobile device it is difficult to do so.

I see an interesting theme, to ask for
an ID to vote is somehow restraining Democrats from voting. Is there a cultural reason that Democrats do not have ID? Are there more Democrats vs Republicans, Independents and other parties without ID? How does requiring an ID, which is required for many things a tool to supress votes?

We also require ID to purchase a firearm, are we the supressing Democrats the ability to own firearms?

Maybe ID for firearms is not necessary considering there are 310 million firearms in our Country and only 32k deaths. This is same logic as why people believe do not believe voter ID is necessary.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6009 Aug 27, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
I have given you ideas how to minimize the firearm violence. Ideas that do not place the burden on the responsible.
The Harvard study where I found it did not show a date, if the information you supplied is accurate I see the disconnect.
Voter fraud in Illinois is well known. I will get links, as I stated before on a mobile device it is difficult to do so.
I see an interesting theme, to ask for
an ID to vote is somehow restraining Democrats from voting. Is there a cultural reason that Democrats do not have ID? Are there more Democrats vs Republicans, Independents and other parties without ID? How does requiring an ID, which is required for many things a tool to supress votes?
We also require ID to purchase a firearm, are we the supressing Democrats the ability to own firearms?
Maybe ID for firearms is not necessary considering there are 310 million firearms in our Country and only 32k deaths. This is same logic as why people believe do not believe voter ID is necessary.
You said gun education in the schools. I went back and looked for other ideas from you, but that's the only one I saw. What am I missing.

I'd be glad to see evidence of successful in-person voter fraud, because any time I've researched it I find nothing consequential.

The poor, the elderly, and young people are the groups least likely to have the required government issued voter IDs, and those groups tend to vote Democratic. Those people are able to live successful lives without the ID that is being required to vote. And meeting the new requirements places enough of a burden on them that some percentage won't bother voting. The GOP is counting on that number being enough to swing elections in close states. You seem like a smart fellow - how do you not know this?

"only 32k" dead? Seriously, did you just say that?

There is something like one gun for every American, but those guns are owned by 35% of the population. So we're not really talking about the number of guns but the number of gun owners.
FormerParatroope r

Detroit, MI

#6010 Aug 27, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You said gun education in the schools. I went back and looked for other ideas from you, but that's the only one I saw. What am I missing.
I'd be glad to see evidence of successful in-person voter fraud, because any time I've researched it I find nothing consequential.
The poor, the elderly, and young people are the groups least likely to have the required government issued voter IDs, and those groups tend to vote Democratic. Those people are able to live successful lives without the ID that is being required to vote. And meeting the new requirements places enough of a burden on them that some percentage won't bother voting. The GOP is counting on that number being enough to swing elections in close states. You seem like a smart fellow - how do you not know this?
"only 32k" dead? Seriously, did you just say that?
There is something like one gun for every American, but those guns are owned by 35% of the population. So we're not really talking about the number of guns but the number of gun owners.
Enforcement of current laws, and earlier I have posted about mental health and the lack of help for people( we closed the mental hospitals that kept the insane of the street), prison reform, keeping repeat violent offenders in prison and immigration enforcement. Those are some ideas I have brought to the table.

I don't buy that older people don't have ID, they have likely driven a vehicle, cashed a check and done other things that ID is required for. The young, drivers licenses? Or at least a State ID for buying beer or cigs. The poor? Do they receive assistance? They need ID for that. I do not know of a State that would not issue an I'D for those who cannot truely afford one.

The percentage that wouldn't "bother" voting would cross the political sprectrum, not just Democrats.

I phrased it that way intentionally. It was a comparison to your statement that only some actual fraud occurs in the vote.

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
Guard fired after Obama visit: I'm not a convict Nov 4 SirPrize 6
Gainer Mooted as Next Secret Service Director Nov 1 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
Secret Service Director Julia Pierson resigns a... Oct '14 inbred Genius 24
Secret Service director resigns under fire Oct '14 Viet Nam Vet 1

US Secret Service People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE