Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion

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.

Comments
5,421 - 5,440 of 11,004 Comments Last updated Apr 3, 2014

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6032
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Why create additional requirements in order to buy a firearm when the system in place now has already blocked 1.5 million people from buying a firearm?
Ummm, because 32,000 of your fellow Americans are still killed with guns every year. I know you're fine with that number, but most people aren't.

And how many political candidates are denied elected office because of in-person voter fraud? ZERO.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6033
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So voter fraud is OK as long as it doesn't cause a problem (swing an election)? Are you f-ing serious???
It's not okay. But the existing system is working, and the remedy will do more damage than exists currently - namely 5 million Americans potentially disenfranchised vs ZERO candidates denied an election they won.

Whenever zero Americans are unjustifiably shot each year and people are still demanding more gun restrictions, get back to me. LOL!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6034
Aug 28, 2013
 
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not okay. But the existing system is working, and the remedy will do more damage than exists currently - namely 5 million Americans potentially disenfranchised vs ZERO candidates denied an election they won.
Whenever zero Americans are unjustifiably shot each year and people are still demanding more gun restrictions, get back to me. LOL!
Unjustifiably shot???? Now you are referring to the 8,583 murders per year (2011). Not the 32,000 TOTAL gun deaths.(I am ignoring the 19,000+ suicides/year because no law will prevent someone from taking their own life no matter how many you pass.)And more laws that will only be followed by law-abiding citizens in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms will do nothing more than disenfranchise those same law-abiding gun owners because of the additional hoops they will have to jump through. And you can keep touting that same 32,000 number until the cows come home. Those here, obviously smarter than you, KNOW it is a disengenuous number to begin with, and it has been proven to be so time and time again.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6036
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Unjustifiably shot???? Now you are referring to the 8,583 murders per year (2011). Not the 32,000 TOTAL gun deaths.(I am ignoring the 19,000+ suicides/year because no law will prevent someone from taking their own life no matter how many you pass.)And more laws that will only be followed by law-abiding citizens in order to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms will do nothing more than disenfranchise those same law-abiding gun owners because of the additional hoops they will have to jump through. And you can keep touting that same 32,000 number until the cows come home. Those here, obviously smarter than you, KNOW it is a disengenuous number to begin with, and it has been proven to be so time and time again.
Pick any number you prefer, they're all greater than ZERO.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6037
Aug 28, 2013
 
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, because 32,000 of your fellow Americans are still killed with guns every year. I know you're fine with that number, but most people aren't.
And how many political candidates are denied elected office because of in-person voter fraud? ZERO.
See? You still try to put words in the mouths of others. No one has said that they are "fine" with that, as you insist on stating/implying. One life take by a criminal or a psycho is too many. The point is that 32,000 by COMPARISON with 110,000,000 is a miniscule number. One would think that the logical course of action would be to go after that small number of wrongdoers rather than restrict, regulate, and abrogate the constitutionally guaranteed rights of MILLIONS who have done no wrong. Would you please explain how legislating against honest law abiding citizens is going to do ANYTHING to reduce or prevent crimes committed by those who pay no attention to the laws now nor will they pay any attention to new ones?
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6038
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And it is HILARIOUS how you libtards keep saying "potentially disenfranchised", which basically says you don't have jack-shit for proof that it disenfranchise anyone. Similar to the left always using the words may, might, could, should, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I agree. It is like the big headline in the paper yesterday concerning the looming attack on Syria. Biden I think it was, had been quoted as saying, "It is positive that they are responsible for the suspected chemical weapon use."
How is it possible to be "positive" about a thing that is only "suspected"? That is some crazy messed up chit right there I tell you.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6039
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Not Biden, I meant Kerry. They all look and sound alike to me.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6040
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. It is like the big headline in the paper yesterday concerning the looming attack on Syria. Biden I think it was, had been quoted as saying, "It is positive that they are responsible for the suspected chemical weapon use."
How is it possible to be "positive" about a thing that is only "suspected"? That is some crazy messed up chit right there I tell you.
Intercepted phone calls prove Syrian army used nerve gas, say U.S. spies

WASHINGTON — Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defence exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people.

Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, FP has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar Assad regime — and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6041
Aug 28, 2013
 
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6042
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Intercepted phone calls prove Syrian army used nerve gas, say U.S. spies
WASHINGTON — Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defence exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people.
Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, FP has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar Assad regime — and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.
Since when does our Constitution allow our armed forces to be used as international police within the boundaries of a foreign nation, when we are not being assaulted by Syria?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6043
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when does our Constitution allow our armed forces to be used as international police within the boundaries of a foreign nation, when we are not being assaulted by Syria?
I'm curious - were you asking that question back in the winter of 2002/2003?

Because I was, and the right told me I was being a traitor to my country. Has any liberal said that to you?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6044
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Pick any number you prefer, they're all greater than ZERO.
And you will NEVER reach zero. It has been an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY since Cain slew Abel.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6045
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious - were you asking that question back in the winter of 2002/2003?
Because I was, and the right told me I was being a traitor to my country. Has any liberal said that to you?
Yes.
Since 2002? I have been asking that since Vietnam.
And, yes. Yes they have.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6046
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

2

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And you will NEVER reach zero. It has been an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY since Cain slew Abel.
Okay. So then comparing gun violence to in-person voter fraud doesn't make any sense, does it? Because in-person voter fraud has resulted in ZERO elections being thrown.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6047
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Since 2002? I have been asking that since Vietnam.
And, yes. Yes they have.
Good for you.

And shame on them.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6048
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious - were you asking that question back in the winter of 2002/2003?
Because I was, and the right told me I was being a traitor to my country. Has any liberal said that to you?
You may be good at asking questions but you suck at answering them. I'm still waiting to hear how you believe restricting, regulating, and infringing on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of millions of law abiding gun owners is going to have any impact on the lawless and the rate at which they commit crimes.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6049
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Since 2002? I have been asking that since Vietnam.
And, yes. Yes they have.
The question actually reared it's ugly head with the conflict in Korea in the '50s. That was the first military action that was referred to as a "police action" that I can remember. The term "police action" was used more and more as our involvement in Viet Nam increased in the '60s.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6050
Aug 28, 2013
 
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>The question actually reared it's ugly head with the conflict in Korea in the '50s. That was the first military action that was referred to as a "police action" that I can remember. The term "police action" was used more and more as our involvement in Viet Nam increased in the '60s.
Agreed. That was a little before my time and Nam was where I first became involved and aware of the "domino theory".
Marauder

North Pole, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6051
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Voting Law Changes in 2012
These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:
- These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
- The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
- Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.
http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voti...
"This wave of changes "MAY" sharply tilt the..."

"These new laws "COULD" make it significantly harder..."

Nothing like quoting such a factual source there danny...don't they sound so positive how it MIGHT affect someone...?...lol

Of course you do realize that the proposed gun laws would in fact deny Constitutional rights to others...of course you do...thats what you want to do.

That's what ignorant, lying, POS, extremist, "frustrated control freaks" want to do.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6052
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Study: New laws restrict voting for 5 million
More than 5 million Americans could find it harder to vote next year under a slew of new voting laws enacted mostly by Republican-controlled legislatures, according to a New York University study out today.
This year, more than a dozen states have passed laws requiring photo identification for voters, curbing early voting or making it harder to conduct voter registration drives. "This is the most significant cutback on voting rights in decades," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, which has challenged new restrictions on voting. "More voters may be affected than the margin of victory in two out of the past three presidential elections."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpol...
"More than 5 million Americans "COULD" find it harder to vote..."

Wow...more factual reporting and sourcing from you...lol

NOT!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••