Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10989 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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#7143 Sep 18, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignorant, lying, POS, extremist, "frustrated control freak" sausage swilling mooching welfare collecting mamma's boy: wipe your chin, dear. Your fellow gun gnutter didn't kill anyone using a Volkswagen.
Try again fool...He didn't use an AR-15 like you and the initial media reports lied about either. You make me sick with your dancing in the blood of the innocent and talk about firearms that weren't even involved just to push your own sick agenda.

Ignorant, lying, POS, extremist. "frustrated control freak".

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7144 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Lock up anybody with a mental illness? Seriously? You realize that you're talking over a quarter of Americans, right?
Alexis evidently shot at people in the cafeteria from a 4th floor overlook. People were dead before anybody would have had the chance to realize what was happening and return fire.
How about you - do you support confiscating weapons owned by law abiding citizens who acquired them legally if they begin to show signs of "dangerous mental illness"?
The law already provides for securing any weapons owned by someone who exhibits signs of mental illness. NOT CONFISCATION. If that person is deemed by experts to be mentally healthy the weapons will be returned. If that person is deemed by experts to be a threat to himself and others the weapons are released to his heirs/family who are not deemed to be mentally ill. The weapons are PRIVATE PROPERTY just like any other piece of an estate owned by a mentally ill person. The government does not have the power or the right to CONFISCATE property from a citizen who has done nothing wrong and without due process of the law. If that person has committed a crime that prohibits him from owning firearms....whole different ball game. How about reinstating some kind of mental illness treatment and confinement system to replace the asylum system you liberals did away with? How about having a mechanism in the law that provides for public safety where dangerously unstable people are concerned instead of letting them wander our streets, many of them homeless and degenerating into even deeper dementia? Here again, you leftist liberals create the problem and then you want to punish EVERYONE for your mistake.

I support keeping mentally ill people from doing harm and possessing weapons. I DO NOT support GOVERNMENT CONFISCATION of any citizens PRIVATE PROPERTY. You may be interested in North Korea, where private property is nothing more than wishful thinking and the government has the power to do whatever it wants regardless of any human rights.

There are already laws on the books to make it illegal for the mentally ill to purchase firearms and there are also laws making it possible to disarm mentally ill people without the government confiscating any private property. So what's your problem? Like all of the gun control laws out there........they didn't prevent the mass shooting at the Navy Yard. What might have prevented it? How about a mental health system that might have helped Alexis before he went over the edge or at the very least have been tracking his illness and confined him for treatment and public safety? What will it take before you understand that criminals/psychos will not be deterred in the slightest by your silly mass punishment gun control laws.

The answer to our problem is criminal/psycho control because, with or without guns, they will continue to kill innocent people by whatever means they find convenient at the time. The threat of random violence can never be eliminated completely from a free society but it can be drastically reduced by removing/controlling the perpetrators..........the criminals and psychos. Making it difficult or impossible for honest law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights is NOT the answer. Try again Danny Boy.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7145 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ALWAYS spin what is posted?
He was using a Remington tactical shotgun which holds no more than 7 rounds and a handgun taken off a dead security guard. He had to reload multiple times in the shootings of the 12 dead and the random shots at other groups of people (per eye witness accounts), plus during the firefights with more than one active-shooter response team. PLENTY of opportunites for him to be engaged by a legal gun owner as well as the cops.
If someone is deemed dangerous to other people through due process (the only way a person's rights may be legally removed)....YES....LOCK THEM UP. What is so hard for you to understand about that??? But, since libtards like yourself don't believe in doing so.....leave my RIGHT to self-preservation alone.
Calm down, calm down. Nobody's talking about taking away any of your rights.

We might be able to have a rational discussion if you didn't insist on getting so emotional.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7146 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
No...the Right wants to put the blame on THE PERSON PULLNG THE TRIGGER. The Left wants to blame the NRA and all LEGAL gun owners.
False.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#7147 Sep 18, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 50 states with at least 50 different standards, how bout if you do not like the kind of country we have, you find another that will put you on the dole and move there- one that will allow mental defects like you to carry right up until you pull the trigger?
There is ONE national standard...that is the 2nd Amendment where the people have the individual right to keep and bear arms. That standard does apply to all 50 States as a result of McDonald vs Chicago.

I don't need to find another anything...there are some States that do recognise the individual rights protected under our Constitution. I do carry open...or concealed...no permit...no license...no training requirement or testing from the nanny state or people like you.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7148 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Now, to answer your question...yes I do support it when it's done in compliance with the law and "due process" has been done. If you lack "due process" then no, a single agency should not have the power to arbitrarily "confiscate guns".
Then we're on the same page.

Another gunner also said that some people just shouldn't own firearms, I'm assuming because they aren't responsible or competent enough to be safe. How about you - aside from people with "dangerous mental illness," do you think that there are other people who just shouldn't own guns?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7149 Sep 18, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, NO I WOULD NOT TRUST ANY POLITICIAN TO INVENT NEW GUN LAWS JUST FOR CRIMINALS TO BREAK. ARM MORE CITIZENS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. I can't make this any more clearer!
So my summary was accurate. Thank you. Don't know why you have to scream about it.

You gunners get so emotional so quickly that it's hard to have a rational conversation with you on this subject.

But that's the core of the whole problem isn't it - your side is incapable of a rational discussion on gun safety.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7150 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"How about you - do you support confiscating weapons owned by law abiding citizens who acquired them legally if they begin to show signs of "dangerous mental illness"?
Yup...when it's legal and in compliance with the law after "due process".
NOW...are YOU wlling to stand up for legilation that will support that process to get the tools inplace that will help make that happen...?...OR...are YOU only willing to go after the arms and the rights of those that haven't broken a law or aren't facing a mental issue...?
Nope, we're in agreement here.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7151 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you support the "national standard" that is already in place...?
How about a "national standard" of carry..?...open or concealed...?
Let's get on the same page as far as the RIGHTS in question before YOU start trying to undermine the rights of others.
What national standard for gun safety is currently in place? I'm not sure what you're referencing.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7152 Sep 18, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
You posed the question initially, so why don't you offer your suggestion? Is is that your afraid that your suggestion would substantiate the claims in regards to your position on gun control?
I'm in agreement with Marauder on this subject.

Now that two other people have stated our position, do you think you can muster the courage to answer the question or would you rather continue dodging it? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7153 Sep 18, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you do.
So does Marauder. How about you?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7154 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Still ignoring the tough but sensible questions, eh? I'm not surprised.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#7155 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we're on the same page.
Another gunner also said that some people just shouldn't own firearms, I'm assuming because they aren't responsible or competent enough to be safe. How about you - aside from people with "dangerous mental illness," do you think that there are other people who just shouldn't own guns?
"...aside from people with "dangerous mental illness," do you think that there are other people who just shouldn't own guns?"

Yup...and there are also those that should keep their mouth shut...or those that shouldn't protest funerals...or shouldn't be allowed to vote...or shouldn't be allowed to drive...etc.

HOWEVER...as disgusting as some people are...as ignorant and uneducated as some people are...as uncoordinated as some people are...I recognise they all have those rights to do what they do. We can't pick and choose the rights we like or don't like. Either you support them all...or none at all. Up until they do become a hazard or threat to others, they have the same freedoms, rights and responsibilities as you or I. All we can do is to be aware of the potential hazards in life and be prepared to protect ourselves and families.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#7156 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in agreement with Marauder on this subject.
Now that two other people have stated our position, do you think you can muster the courage to answer the question or would you rather continue dodging it? LOL!
So you also agree that the proposed legislation that could have helped establish the tools necessary for States to work within the NICS system were defeated by those in Congress that you support...? The same ones that were pushing for anti-gun legislation that wouldn't have made a difference...?

The very legislation that you asked about earlier...?...that you apparently didn't know about...?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7157 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we're on the same page.
Another gunner also said that some people just shouldn't own firearms, I'm assuming because they aren't responsible or competent enough to be safe. How about you - aside from people with "dangerous mental illness," do you think that there are other people who just shouldn't own guns?
Some people just shouldn't own guns? Okay. Some people just shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Who gets to make that distinction between who should and who shouldn't? You? Me? Some government official? We're talking about constitutionally guaranteed rights here. Who do you want to make the decision whether you're free and equal or a second class person undeserving of true citizenship?
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#7158 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in agreement with Marauder on this subject.
Now that two other people have stated our position, do you think you can muster the courage to answer the question or would you rather continue dodging it? LOL!
I have no issues with the confiscation of guns from individuals who have been identified through due process of having mental issues which would preclude them from owing a weapon.

I also believe that once convicted of a felony you forfeit all gun ownership rights for life, as opposed to the current laws in may states which allow after a period of time to have these rights reinstated.

Clear enough?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7159 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...aside from people with "dangerous mental illness," do you think that there are other people who just shouldn't own guns?"
Yup...and there are also those that should keep their mouth shut...or those that shouldn't protest funerals...or shouldn't be allowed to vote...or shouldn't be allowed to drive...etc.
HOWEVER...as disgusting as some people are...as ignorant and uneducated as some people are...as uncoordinated as some people are...I recognise they all have those rights to do what they do. We can't pick and choose the rights we like or don't like. Either you support them all...or none at all. Up until they do become a hazard or threat to others, they have the same freedoms, rights and responsibilities as you or I. All we can do is to be aware of the potential hazards in life and be prepared to protect ourselves and families.
But people unqualified to exercise the rights you list here don't kill other people in the process.

So to summarize:
Some people are unqualified to own or use guns, but that's just a risk you think we have to live with. Because everyone has the right to own any weapon they want without any regulation or oversight. Free speech has restrictions, but gun ownership can't. Let me know where I'm not summarizing your position correctly.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7160 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down, calm down. Nobody's talking about taking away any of your rights.
We might be able to have a rational discussion if you didn't insist on getting so emotional.
Your typical response when you can't refute what has been posted.

Not surprised.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7161 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you also agree that the proposed legislation that could have helped establish the tools necessary for States to work within the NICS system were defeated by those in Congress that you support...? The same ones that were pushing for anti-gun legislation that wouldn't have made a difference...?
The very legislation that you asked about earlier...?...that you apparently didn't know about...?
Graham's NICS improvement bill wasn't voted on. Who "defeated" it? Last I heard it was sitting in committee. But I support it as one measure among others.

And I don't know what you're talking about - what legislation did I ask about earlier? I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7162 Sep 18, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no issues with the confiscation of guns from individuals who have been identified through due process of having mental issues which would preclude them from owing a weapon.
I also believe that once convicted of a felony you forfeit all gun ownership rights for life, as opposed to the current laws in may states which allow after a period of time to have these rights reinstated.
Clear enough?
Yes, you're clear now that you've finally expressed your opinion. Thank you.

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 Russian man convicted of hacking into US busine... 18 hr Mizike67 5
News Russian man faces US trial in lucrative hacking... Aug 14 Nu Wor Order 4
News Cleveland prepares for RNC convention protests May '16 Hostis Publicus 9
News Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offen... May '16 Jelly Belly Popcorn 3
News Man shot outside White House remains in critica... May '16 WeTheSheeple 2
News Secret Service agent shoots armed man outside W... May '16 Bama Yankee 16
News Bill Clinton ditched Secret Service on multiple... May '16 IsTrumpDodgingThis 2
More from around the web