Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11004 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.

RealfollowerofSa tan

Winter Park, FL

#7265 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
How many of those "1.5 million" were actually prosecuted for trying to buy a firearm illegally??? How many were legal purchasers denied for no apparent reason (I personally know of two)??? Unless the illegal purchasers were actually arrested, it didn't prevent them from doing a damn thing, because they would still be able to seek one on the black market, which you have NO control over.
And no it won't. By Biden's own words...we don't have the resources to prosecute those who attempt to obtain firearms illegally NOW. So what good would MORE laws do anyway????
why can't we buy an RPG or nuclear weapon? try to get one on the black market....

my condolences to your mom..

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7267 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
How many of those "1.5 million" were actually prosecuted
How many of the 1.5 million sales that were denied would have otherwise resulted in a death that you would have excused, doosh?

Let's say one in one thousand.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7268 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I am concerned about everything that kills Americans. But only on guns is there coordinated resistance to addressing the problem.
You know full well who the gun safety advocates I'm referring to are. Your opinion piece doesn't change anything about what I've said.
Here's where you made the claim that irrationality from the pro-gun crowd is justified by some people using terms you don't like:
<quoted text>
Since I was talking about name-calling, personal attacks, and threats of violence. You plainly said in that post that those sorts of irrational attacks are "justifiably" caused and "responses I deserve."
Remember now?
"But only on guns is there coordinated resistance to addressing the problem."

I just showed you attempts to fix the "problems"...that was rejected...WHY..?

BEACAUSE we, you and I, and gun owners and control freaks...DO NOT see the same problems...thats why. You and the other control freaks see the guns or as you say, access as a problem...the high capacity magazines as a problem...the "gunshow loophole" that doesn't exist as a problem...it's gotten sooo bad that even the mass media has this hysteria that any time there is a shooting that it had to involve an AR-15...the AR-15 is the problem...or assault weapons are the problem.

I see (I won't attempt to speak for others) the control freaks making up words or changing definitions of words to fit their agenda...I see the mass media reporting wrong information as facts (an AR-15 when one wasn't used or "automatic rifle" for something that is semi-automatic)...or using the term "loophole" when one doesn't exist because they are too scared to say what they actually mean...or saying 1.5 million people didn't get a gun because of the background check and yet there are slim to none (about 1-2%) prosecutions for these felonies because Joe Biden says we don't have the manpower or resources to enforce the law...WOW!...and of those 1.5 million that were denied the legal purchase of gun went out that same night and stole or bought one off the street...and then used it against someone...? I the problems with the system and lack of enforcement where you see the problem as the inanimate object being used. YOU continually bring up 32,000 killed...well break it down for us...how many are suicides that take their own life...? How many are killed by law enforcement or are classified as justifiable homocide...? How many are accidents...? Now how many are left that are a criminal act...?

Violent crime to include violent crime with a gun has been going down for over 20 years...that is a good thing...but from the news and the control freaks crime is rising at an alarming rate. All this hysteria over "assault rifles"...the AR-15...and do you even realize that more people are killed by a person using blunt objects than by a person using assault rifles...?...go figure.

"Since I was talking about name-calling, personal attacks, and threats of violence."

OMG...really...go talk to barefool...and what "threats of violence" is anyone capable of in a forum..?...please tell me, I really want to know the answer to that question.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7270 Sep 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
BEACAUSE we, you and I, and gun owners and control freaks...DO NOT see the same problems...
Yeah, you special rights control freaks don't see the 32,000 people killed every year, and refuse any responsibility for the two dozen mass murders every year, and insist the best approach is to do nothing except make sure more people get guns, people that you don't want to do background checks on.

And idiotically pretend there isn't any such thing as a gun show loop hole even though it matches exactly your definition of loop hole.

Ninety percent of Americans understand: we aren't waiting for you to get any smarter.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7271 Sep 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
1.5 million people didn't get a gun because of the background check and yet there are slim to none (about 1-2%)
Funny how you cry and stomp and whine and INSIST everyone answer your loaded question but you answer the questions- any of them- put to you.

1.5 million- and that is a conservative number- sales were denied because they failed the background check (as limited as that is now).

How many THOUSANDS of lives were save when these sales were refused- refused to people that you and your ilk are all to happy to sell?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7272 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
We can plan a semantic game all day long. All it is is your attempt to distract from the facts at hand - countless gun sales in the US are not subject to background checks that can prevent unqualified people from buying guns.
That's a problem that needs to be addressed and you're doing all you can to prevent that from happening. You're doing all you can to help people who have absolutely no business owning a gun to legally buy one. I don't have any idea why you want to do that, but that's what you are doing with these stupid distractions.
And guess what Danny Boy. Even if you and your ilk are successful in eroding American freedom with your background checks..........THERE WILL STILL BE COUNTLESS GUN SALES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THE BLACK MARKET. It will be business as usual for the criminals/psychos and the only people that will be restricted are law abiding citizens. No one is trying to help criminals/psychos to obtain guns, the people who disagree with you are working to prevent you from infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. If you want to improve public safety, take the criminals/psychos off of our streets and repeal your "feel good", "let 'em go" liberal leftist policies. Stop putting criminals/psychos back on our streets to commit more violent crime. You liberals create the problem and then attempt to hold all of society responsible. Try again Danny Boy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7273 Sep 19, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the actual ones that did die
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I demand people answer my questions but never respond to anyone else's!

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH!

You m/f lying *t: the people who die are shot dead by your toys.
]
You keep skipping over that.

If the cops don't show up in time: the bodies still have holes in them.

Pathetic cowards like yourself scream and cry and demand the right to sell to anyone you please including OTHER pathetic yellow women hitting cowards.

Ninety percent of Americans think you are mental.

Which brings us back to whether or not you should own a gun.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7274 Sep 19, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>And guess what Danny Boy. Even if you and your ilk are successful in eroding American freedom with your background checks...
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! We demand the "right" to sell guns to felons!

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Wife beaters have rights!

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7275 Sep 19, 2013
Squach wrote:
.THERE WILL STILL BE COUNTLESS GUN SALES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THE BLACK MARKET.
OF COURSE THERE ARE COUNTLESS THOUSANDS OF GUN SALES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS IN BUILDINGS AND ARMORIES OWN BY TAXPAYERS INCLUDING SALES THIS WEEKEND.

IT'S CALLED THE GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.

And stupid sh!ts like yourself are all too happy to sell them out of the trunk of your car as it is.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7276 Sep 19, 2013
Squach wrote:
THERE WILL STILL BE COUNTLESS GUN SALES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THE BLACK MARKET.
NOT IF WE PUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN PRISON FOR SELLING GUNS TO YOUR FRIENDS THE FELONS AND THE WIFE BEATERS AFTER PASSING THE LAW REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL SALES.

Stupid Squishy.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7277 Sep 19, 2013
Hey Danny Boy. Why is it that when I post the FACTS about your ineffective and unconstitutional gun control measures, all I see from you is elbows and shoe soles as you run away?

And then your nasty old mangy guard dog (the other you) shows up to make sexually perverted comments, attempt character assassination, spew lies and generally try to deflect attention away from the fact that you ran away like a little girl.

This has become a very amusing pattern and for the casual reader it shows that you gun control advocates are nothing more than control freaks and public safety means nothing to you. If it did, you'd be working on getting the dangerous criminals/psychos off of our streets instead of trying to restrict and regulate honest law abiding citizens. Keep up the good work.

BTW, you can put your white flag away. I will never accept your surrender, I work for the complete destruction of your movement and philosophy.
Absolutely

Santa Fe, NM

#7278 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to say that no bills have been submitted that would call for the banning of firearms in 20 years????
true.
your

Santa Fe, NM

#7279 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>

requiring ALL gun sale transactions to go through a background check will somehow prevent the criminals of this world from getting their hands on a firearm. With millions of guns already available on the black market,.
fault.
Another

Santa Fe, NM

#7280 Sep 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>

. The powers that be who wish to disarm the general public don't have the balls anymore to freely admit that general disarmament is their main goal
lie
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7281 Sep 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you special rights control freaks don't see the 32,000 people killed every year, and refuse any responsibility for the two dozen mass murders every year, and insist the best approach is to do nothing except make sure more people get guns, people that you don't want to do background checks on.
And idiotically pretend there isn't any such thing as a gun show loop hole even though it matches exactly your definition of loop hole.
Ninety percent of Americans understand: we aren't waiting for you to get any smarter.
Go cry a river...you make me sick the way you defend the criminal acts of convicted felons...only to continue to walk street with no consequences.

"And idiotically pretend there isn't any such thing as a gun show loop hole even though it matches exactly your definition of loop hole."

There isn't...and you're a liar...but it's fine with me for you to prove it again.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7282 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The point of the exchange where you're saying it isn't very clear for you...is that the dabate that matters has already taken place...at the Supreme Court...that's exactly why I asked you why their decision wasn't clear enough for you.

And here you are again...still avoiding that question by being more obtuse and deflecting to the manner in which I ask a question or make a comment. I don't see any rules posted in how to debate...I don't care if you don"t like how I debate...I don't have to follow your rules either.

You're under no obligation to reply to anything posted here. You do so at your own choosing...nothing that I post can "cause" you to do anything.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7283 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"All of them related to gun safety."

Well I'm sure those "things" would be in line with the oldest and longest educating organization for gun safety in the United States, the NRA. They would probably be very interested in the gun safety "things" that you support...as would many posters here.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7284 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?
It isn't a loophole at all. The law requires Federaly Licensed gun dealers to conduct a background check on buyers of handguns...period.

A loophole in that law would be where a licensed dealer could make a handgun sale legally, without doing the background check. THAT would be a loophole in the law.

What you and others are trying to do, is say that because the law doesn't cover private sales, then that is a loophole...and it isn't. Once again, it's redefining words to fit your position and promote your agenda.

The law was written and passed as a requirement for federally license gun dealers only.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7285 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
We can plan a semantic game all day long. All it is is your attempt to distract from the facts at hand - countless gun sales in the US are not subject to background checks that can prevent unqualified people from buying guns.
That's a problem that needs to be addressed and you're doing all you can to prevent that from happening. You're doing all you can to help people who have absolutely no business owning a gun to legally buy one. I don't have any idea why you want to do that, but that's what you are doing with these stupid distractions.
"We can plan a semantic game all day long."

YOU'RE the one playing symantics because the law doesn't say what you want it to say. All others have told you and showed you is the law. Ok, you don't like the way the law is written...that's fine...but don't redefine words in order to pull the wool over someone's eyes...or convince them that there is a problem with the law when that has not been the problem.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#7286 Sep 19, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you dismiss facts you don't like as "spin." Almost like you're using dishonest terms.
I have not proposed anything that would deny, infringe, or restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Of course when someone holds the extremist position you hold that everyone has the right to own whatever weapon they want and as much ammunition as they want with no regulation or oversight, then you would believe that reasonable gun regulations are unconstitutional.
But you would be wrong.
"Almost like you're using dishonest terms."

I haven't.

"Of course when someone holds the extremist position you hold that everyone has the right to own whatever weapon they want and as much ammunition as they want with no regulation or oversight, then you would believe that reasonable gun regulations are unconstitutional."

I told you before that was an exaggeration...so you do it again...so I guess we'll just call this another of your lies.

Oh, and there's another one of those camoflauged gun control terms..."reasonable gun regulations".

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 First Lady: Secret Service Agents Taught Malia ... May 18 fedupwiththemess 3
News Gyrocopter pilot spoke with Tampa Bay Times bef... Apr 28 CSA 11
News Elder Bush's home alarm-free for 13 months Apr 24 Sterkfontein Swar... 4
News First lady: Secret Service agents taught Malia ... Apr '15 Responsibility 25
News Congress probes Clinton email scandal using new... Apr '15 Righteous 31
News First Lady Michelle Obama reveals that Secret S... Apr '15 fedupwiththemess 1
News Chaffetz asks for Secret Service leak probe Apr '15 novus ordo seclorum 4
More from around the web