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

#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.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7163 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?
Taking note of the post above by Squach, he is right on many points. There are other avenues available to secure the firearms of those deemed unfit, that can be taken before any confiscation order should be considered. ANY confiscation being considered would be a last resort effort.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7164 Sep 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Your typical response when you can't refute what has been posted.
Not surprised.
You seemed to be refuting an argument that I didn't make and shouting about issues I didn't raise. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when you get like that, so why should I waste my time.

If you'd like to try again in a polite tone without the name-calling, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7165 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"But that's the core of the whole problem isn't it - your side is incapable of a rational discussion on gun safety."

Probably caused, justifiably, by you and "your side" of changing definitions of words to fit your agenda. You know exactly what I'm talking about, so don't be coy. Your use of "gun safety" above when that has nothing to do with what you are talking about...another is the non-existant "gunshow loophole"...there isn't one.

So if "your side" would be honest with your position and quit trying to convince more people with smoke and mirrors...then maybe you wouldn't get some of the responses you deserve.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7166 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...?
This is the "defeated" bill you're talking about, right?
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7167 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Taking note of the post above by Squach, he is right on many points. There are other avenues available to secure the firearms of those deemed unfit, that can be taken before any confiscation order should be considered. ANY confiscation being considered would be a last resort effort.
I don't read Squash's posts, but I continue to agree with you that guns should be confiscated from the "dangerously mentally ill."

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7168 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"But that's the core of the whole problem isn't it - your side is incapable of a rational discussion on gun safety."
Probably caused, justifiably, by you and "your side" of changing definitions of words to fit your agenda. You know exactly what I'm talking about, so don't be coy. Your use of "gun safety" above when that has nothing to do with what you are talking about...another is the non-existant "gunshow loophole"...there isn't one.
So if "your side" would be honest with your position and quit trying to convince more people with smoke and mirrors...then maybe you wouldn't get some of the responses you deserve.
Gun safety is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And I've never used the term "gunshow loophole." And I've been completely honest about my position here.

But if I do use terms that pro-gun folks don't like, then someone calling me "libtard" and posting "jokes" about considering more than just two different rounds when threatening to shoot me is my own fault?

I thought conservatives were all about taking personal responsibility. But if someone uses terms you don't like, then it's not THEIR fault if people make personal attacks and threaten violence.

Please.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7169 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Where?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7170 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
What national standard for gun safety is currently in place? I'm not sure what you're referencing.
The only "national standard" in place that covers "arms".

That help...?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7171 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where?
What?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7172 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "national standard" in place that covers "arms".
That help...?
I suppose you're referring to the 2nd Amendment.

But if that was clear, we wouldn't be having a debate, would we? So obviously that isn't specific enough to be much of a standard, is it?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7173 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Some people are unqualified to own or use guns, but that's just a risk you think we have to live with."

Yes.

"Because everyone has the right to own any weapon they want without any regulation or oversight."

Exageration...but close.

"Free speech has restrictions..."

No it doesn't...it has punishments for misuse.

"Let me know where I'm not summarizing your position correctly."

I just did.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7174 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the "defeated" bill you're talking about, right?
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/...
Possibly but I don't have my reference material in front of me. The one I'm talking about did have a vote.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7175 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Some people are unqualified to own or use guns, but that's just a risk you think we have to live with."
Yes.
"Because everyone has the right to own any weapon they want without any regulation or oversight."
Exageration...but close.
"Free speech has restrictions..."
No it doesn't...it has punishments for misuse.
"Let me know where I'm not summarizing your position correctly."
I just did.
LOL! That was a lot of work to just say, "You have it about right."

Thanks.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7176 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun safety is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And I've never used the term "gunshow loophole." And I've been completely honest about my position here.
But if I do use terms that pro-gun folks don't like, then someone calling me "libtard" and posting "jokes" about considering more than just two different rounds when threatening to shoot me is my own fault?
I thought conservatives were all about taking personal responsibility. But if someone uses terms you don't like, then it's not THEIR fault if people make personal attacks and threaten violence.
Please.
"Gun safety is EXACTLY what I'm talking about."

Really...So these are the Gun safety issues you're talking about;

1. ALL guns are always loaded.

2. Never let your muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. Never put your finger on the trigger until your sights are aligned on your target.

4. Be aware of your target, it's surroundings and what is beyond.

Now those are "GUN SAFETY" items and issues. ALL of your and others "GUN CONTROL" issues are NOT "GUN SAFETY" issues.

"I've never used the term "gunshow loophole."

That would be amazing, but I'm not going to go look.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7177 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! That was a lot of work to just say, "You have it about right."
Thanks.
Except as stipulated.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7178 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Gun safety is EXACTLY what I'm talking about."
Really...So these are the Gun safety issues you're talking about;
1. ALL guns are always loaded.
2. Never let your muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Never put your finger on the trigger until your sights are aligned on your target.
4. Be aware of your target, it's surroundings and what is beyond.
Now those are "GUN SAFETY" items and issues. ALL of your and others "GUN CONTROL" issues are NOT "GUN SAFETY" issues.
"I've never used the term "gunshow loophole."
That would be amazing, but I'm not going to go look.
Now "gun control" is certainly a loaded buzz-word. I guess you have your own, don't you? Are people who dislike that term now justified in calling you Repubtard and making jokes about killing you?

I think "gunshow loophole" is a stupid term because it's inaccurate and doesn't address what I'm interested in anyway. So, no, I haven't used that term.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#7179 Sep 18, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you're referring to the 2nd Amendment.
But if that was clear, we wouldn't be having a debate, would we? So obviously that isn't specific enough to be much of a standard, is it?
Why isn't;

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Clear enough for you...?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7180 Sep 18, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Except as stipulated.
Yeah, but I'm not interested in another argument about how laws and punishment work. We've beat that horse to death already.

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