Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7228 Sep 19, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the world are you talking about Mr. Chambersburg?
What "personal religous ideology" are you talking about?
I have seen no such thing as "personal religous ideology" being pushed here.
Just what "religous ideology" are you claiming counters your "Constitutional rights?
The religious conviction that life begins at conception. The same religious conviction that the Raging Nerd is using to claim that denying women their Constitutional right to privacy is acceptable.

If you don't see that here, maybe you should pay closer attention.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7229 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The left is interested in supporting all aspects of the Constitution, including the right to privacy, domestic tranquility, and general welfare. Our positions are consistent with those rights and we're unwilling to abandon them like you whenever you choose to give your imposing your personal religious ideology preference over Constitutional rights.
Is this what you believe????? Really???? So you call depriving honest law abiding citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights "supporting the Constitution"???? You leftist liberals have always cherry picked the parts of the constitution you're willing to support. Just like you state that you support equality but in the same breath you endorse state mandated racism. You're just a big old basket of contradictions. Try again Danny Boy.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#7230 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment. And I said that if it was clear, we wouldn't be having this debate because everyone would agree.
Then you changed the subject to the Heller decision (which I of course recognize - thanks for the condescension). If that's what you want to talk about, fine - just be clear that's what you're talking about instead of being deliberately vague as a gotcha game.
Having exchanged many posts with you...I have picked up on your "obtuse" thinking and addressing a question with a question.

YOU know very well what I was talking about...the 2nd Amendment...and your position that it isn't "very clear". So I provided you with the decision from the authorities that decide those arguments.

So I asked you once again, based on the decision provided by the United States Supreme Court, was their decision clear enough for you...?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7231 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I support all those things.
Why?
Because my concern most certainly IS gun safety.
You are arguing with what you imagine my position is rather than what I've actually said or believe.
Again.
Like usual.
LOL!
You say you support them, but you haven't mentioned them once in all your posting here. Hence, you are NOT talking about gun "safety". I am debating with what you have actually posted in the threads, not what you all of a sudden say you agree with.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7232 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you required to go through a federal background check for the firearms you buy there?
No, you're not.
And that's obviously what I was talking about.
You are if you are buying from a federally licensed dealer. You are not only if you are buying from a private seller who is selling guns from his own collection.

Both of these are the same as if you are buying a firearm outside of a gunshow. Hence, NO gunshow loophole.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7233 Sep 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
You're welcome...now you know that some of those things that could actually make a difference, without going after the guns of lawful gun owners, were defeated by those that are after the guns. "THEY" didn't care of the alternate proposals would work or not...if it didn't involve additional restrictions on guns...so called "assault weapons"...so called "high capacity magazines"...or expanding background checks...then "THEY" didn't want it and reject it.
So now you know who is actually trying to improve the system to make it work better...and who just wants to go after guns.
Sorry, I can't agree with your false assumption. Voluntary gun safety training exists now - right along with mass shootings and 32,000 Americans shot by guns every year. If that was an adequate solution it would be self-evident.

This is why additional regulation is needed. Limits on high capacity clips would have saved lives at Newtown, Aurora, and Arizona. Expanding background checks to include ALL gun sales would prevent people who we agree should not own firearms from getting them. These are reasonable regulations that don't interfere with your 2nd Amendment right in any way. And there are others.

"Going after guns" is another of your dishonest rightwing buzz words designed to dishonestly influence the debate. You're doing what you accused me of doing. Am I justified in calling you names and threatening to shoot you now?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7234 Sep 19, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>If gun safety is your aim, learn how to handle and use one safely and then teach others to do the same. If public safety is your aim.........take the criminals/psychos off of our streets instead of pampering them and setting them free to commit more crimes.
It truly is just as plain and simple as that.

Spot on, Squach.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7235 Sep 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Having exchanged many posts with you...I have picked up on your "obtuse" thinking and addressing a question with a question.
YOU know very well what I was talking about...the 2nd Amendment...and your position that it isn't "very clear". So I provided you with the decision from the authorities that decide those arguments.
So I asked you once again, based on the decision provided by the United States Supreme Court, was their decision clear enough for you...?
Of course I knew you were talking about the 2nd Amendment - I even said so. But then you switched things by talking about a recent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment instead. It's a game you're playing to avoid honest debate.

You were being deliberately vague, causing me to ask clarifying questions, which then allowed you to call me "obtuse". It's a game you're playing. If you were interested in honest debate, you'd be direct and you'd get direct answers. You're playing this game to allow you to feel superior and boost your fragile ego.

Get back to me when you decide you're interested in honest adult debate.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7236 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you support them, but you haven't mentioned them once in all your posting here. Hence, you are NOT talking about gun "safety". I am debating with what you have actually posted in the threads, not what you all of a sudden say you agree with.
There are lots of things I support that I haven't specifically listed here. All of them related to gun safety.

And you are debating what you imagine I support, NOT what I've actually posted.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7237 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
It truly is just as plain and simple as that.
Spot on, Squach.
Thanks but I just call 'em as I see 'em. It ain't rocket science. Leftists like Danny Boy know it's true but they have an agenda and armed citizens are not part of it so they will try to rationalize, BS, lie, and deceive to further that agenda. More than one well educated person has said that if America is ever destroyed......it will be done from within, not by a foreign power. The leftist agenda is to destroy The United States of America and replace it with The Peoples Socialist Republic of America where the government does all of the thinking, makes all of the decisions, and controls every aspect of daily life. Plain and simple.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#7238 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Upset or frightened? By YOU? LOL! Hardly.
You lost your cool. You do it all the time with the name calling, personal attacks and screaming. Why can't you just be man enough to admit that?
You're a joke on this forum and probably IRL. No one takes you even remotely serious. You represent the extremist of your socialist party and the majority of us just pokes and prods you just to get a laugh for the day. See, Dan people like you aren't interested in debate and those of us on the right know this but we all enjoy statist like yourself to share your view of the world just so we can point to for everyone to see just the direction your party wants to go in. So please don't think that someone here wants to somehow "Convert" you into common sense when it comes to American freedoms. So thicken your skin and stop whining about someone pissing on you when you are just as antagonistic. You'll get no hugs nor sympathies from me or anyone else. Just get over it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7239 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You are if you are buying from a federally licensed dealer. You are not only if you are buying from a private seller who is selling guns from his own collection.
Both of these are the same as if you are buying a firearm outside of a gunshow. Hence, NO gunshow loophole.
It's still a loophole to background checks, friend. What would your preferred name for this loophole be? Private seller loophole?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7240 Sep 19, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a joke on this forum and probably IRL. No one takes you even remotely serious. You represent the extremist of your socialist party and the majority of us just pokes and prods you just to get a laugh for the day. See, Dan people like you aren't interested in debate and those of us on the right know this but we all enjoy statist like yourself to share your view of the world just so we can point to for everyone to see just the direction your party wants to go in. So please don't think that someone here wants to somehow "Convert" you into common sense when it comes to American freedoms. So thicken your skin and stop whining about someone pissing on you when you are just as antagonistic. You'll get no hugs nor sympathies from me or anyone else. Just get over it.
You sure waste a lot of time and energy on someone you consider a joke. Particularly since most of that time and energy is spent debating strawman arguments that you've set up rather than with what I actually post.

Tell you what - if I'm a joke, ignore me. That's what I do to posters who are a joke.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#7241 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The left is interested in supporting all aspects of the Constitution, including the right to privacy, domestic tranquility, and general welfare. Our positions are consistent with those rights and we're unwilling to abandon them like you whenever you choose to give your imposing your personal religious ideology preference over Constitutional rights.
As is the right. The leftist/Statist want to ban/and or confiscate guns. They do so with their slow march by trying to enact new laws and consistently try to vilify guns and their owners, hell you do so yourself by calling them "Gunners" or "Gun Nuts" but your ignorance you have rationalized it to be "OK" to do whatever it takes to do your part. Also where does it say that abortions are constitutionally protected? If someone wants one then they will have it but I do not want my tax dollars going to abortion clinics that kill unborn children. Let them pay for their only irresponsibility or put the child up for adoption but the federal govt. should not be involved in supporting abortions or paying for birth control. Personal responsibility being the key words.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7242 Sep 19, 2013
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
As is the right. The leftist/Statist want to ban/and or confiscate guns. They do so with their slow march by trying to enact new laws and consistently try to vilify guns and their owners, hell you do so yourself by calling them "Gunners" or "Gun Nuts" but your ignorance you have rationalized it to be "OK" to do whatever it takes to do your part. Also where does it say that abortions are constitutionally protected? If someone wants one then they will have it but I do not want my tax dollars going to abortion clinics that kill unborn children. Let them pay for their only irresponsibility or put the child up for adoption but the federal govt. should not be involved in supporting abortions or paying for birth control. Personal responsibility being the key words.
Nobody is trying to ban or confiscate guns. That's a strawman argument you prefer to real, actual proposals.

Roe v Wade says abortions are Constitutionally protected. How do you not know that?

None of your tax dollars go to fund abortions. It's against the law. Haven't you heard of the Hyde Amendment either?

It's hard to take you seriously when you're this massively uninformed and misinformed.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7243 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still a loophole to background checks, friend. What would your preferred name for this loophole be? Private seller loophole?
A loophole is a legal way to get around an existing law. Since the sale a firearm between two private individuals is a legal transaction that does NOT require a background check, they are NOT getting around any existing law....it is NOT required. Hence...NO LOOPHOLE. Keep dancing, Danny Boy.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7244 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I can't agree with your false assumption. Voluntary gun safety training exists now - right along with mass shootings and 32,000 Americans shot by guns every year. If that was an adequate solution it would be self-evident.
This is why additional regulation is needed. Limits on high capacity clips would have saved lives at Newtown, Aurora, and Arizona. Expanding background checks to include ALL gun sales would prevent people who we agree should not own firearms from getting them. These are reasonable regulations that don't interfere with your 2nd Amendment right in any way. And there are others.
"Going after guns" is another of your dishonest rightwing buzz words designed to dishonestly influence the debate. You're doing what you accused me of doing. Am I justified in calling you names and threatening to shoot you now?
Danny Boy, you know as well as I do that background checks are nothing more than a custom made opportunity for government to abuse power. People get denied their constitutional rights arbitrarily on a whim of the checker for arrests (not convictions) and 20 year old misdemeanors etc. Do you REALLY think that a felony convict is going to attempt to obtain a firearm from a reputable dealer? Hell no! They will obtain guns on the black market just like they always have. It's so much easier for them on the black market, no waiting periods, no background checks, they don't care if you're crazier than a shithouse rat, all you need is money. Your opinion that everyone who owns a gun is a potential mass shooter is not conducive to liberty and freedom. But you have made it quite clear that you believe the government should decide what our liberties and freedoms are, not the Constitution. You have also made it quite clear that you have no use for individual responsibility, you'd rather see the government hold the entire population responsible for the acts of individuals. Which is also directly opposed to the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#7245 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
loophole
noun
- a means or opportunity of evading or escaping a rule, law, etc.
Whenever people buy and sell guns in ways that avoid federal background checks, they are using a loophole in the law. Sorry that you don't like that fact, but that doesn't change that it's a fact.
BTW - if it weren't for "low information voters" the GOP wouldn't ever win a national election. You should be on your knees before your God thanking him for "low information voters." LOL!
So because there is not law for selling my shotgun to my neighbor, then that is a "Loop-hope"?
I hope that is not what you’re saying!!
_
Example: I went to the store and bought my neighbors Oreo cookies.
_
Now, the left believes that I just use a loop-hole to provide my neighbors with cookies that will lead to their death because cookies lead to heart disease that kills 2.468 Million people a year.
_See I can do this with just about anything, hammers, screwdrivers, alcohol, ball-bats.
Sorry but those are the facts and you can't get around "Your Facts" See I can be just as ridiculous as you are.
I find it funny that you just make up your own definitions to fit your narrative on laws that don't exist.
Man up and just admit that this isn't a loop-hole because no laws are in place for lawful citizens (not gun store owners) to sell certain guns to other Americans.

noun: loophole;&#8195;plural noun: loopholes
1. 1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
"they exploited tax loopholes"
synonyms: means of evasion, means of avoidance; More
window, gap, opening
"a loophole in the regulations"

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7246 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is trying to ban or confiscate guns. That's a strawman argument you prefer to real, actual proposals.
That is a lie, and you know it. Feinstein herself admitted that she would go out and confiscate every weapon she could find if she had the votes to pass the law, and her opinion has never wavered from that. Hell...she wrote the assault weapons ban. Try again.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#7247 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is trying to ban or confiscate guns. That's a strawman argument you prefer to real, actual proposals.
Roe v Wade says abortions are Constitutionally protected. How do you not know that?
None of your tax dollars go to fund abortions. It's against the law. Haven't you heard of the Hyde Amendment either?
It's hard to take you seriously when you're this massively uninformed and misinformed.
The Fed Govt. has funded Planned Parrenthood since the 70's and Planned Parenthood violates the spirit Hyde Amendmentor the letter of the law by its promotion of abortion as a means of planning a family, the taxpayer dollars it receives are subsidizing its abortion business.

Haven't you heard of the Hyde Amendment either?
It's hard to take you seriously when you're this massively uninformed and misinformed.

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 hacker faces decades in prison Fri USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr 19 alina 7
News Oklahoma state senator plans to resign followin... Mar 23 Dakoter 44
News Man who drove suspicious car near White House i... Mar '17 RustyS 1
News Secret Service laptop containing Trump Tower ev... Mar '17 Cordwainer Trout 7
News White House intruder was on grounds for 15 minu... Mar '17 Texxy 1
News Poop scooper gets probation for using fake IDs,... Mar '17 CodeTalker 3
More from around the web