Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10983 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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7913 Sep 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW- he did not buy an AR-15..
If he wasn't in such a hurry, he could have just waited until the weekend, and gone to AV's gun show and bought one from one of the "private collectors" who are all too happy to sell to anyone with the cash.
PS: the people he killed... still count.
1. Wasn't MY gunshow.
2. Did not see a single table by any private seller selling any AR's. Try again.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7916 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
go down to the airport and tell them you refuse to be searched...you rights are being violated....bwhhahahhahahahahh
call the NSA and FBI and tell them you don't want your phone conversations, emails and text messages monitored.... your rights are being violated.... bwhwhhahhhahhahahah
while you are at it, tell them you don't want drones flying over your house because your right are being violated....bbwhahhahahhahaha. ...
YOU ARE A CERTIFIED MORON...
Nah...that's what our representatives are for in Congress...you know, those same ones that shot down more gun-control laws.

BTW...you can't "certify" squat...well, unless you actually squat...then you might lose your mind.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7919 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
What was unlawful about it? You seem to forget that the decision to go into Iraq was passed in Congress, and we were only one of about 35 countries to go AFTER Saddam had violated 17 UN resolutions.
<quoted text>
And those who were caught were busted for it. Remember Abu Ghraib?
<quoted text>
Passed by the Patriot Act. Not unlawful.(and no, I did NOT agree with it...any of it)
<quoted text>
Is it the right who is spending billions of dollars on ammo and armored personnel carriers for the DHS? Didn't think so. What does the DHS need all those APCs for anyway if not to use on our own people?
1. The Iraq invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter, and therefore was illegal. And conservatives followed right along with the unlawful CIC directives.

2. It's good you at least don't deny that torture was illegal. A conservative administration implemented an illegal torture policy and there were those who followed along.

3. Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps through executive order within weeks of 9/11 and well BEFORE the Patriot Act required warrants. It was unlawful, and many conservatives followed right along with the unlawful order.

As you said, "there are still those who would be dumb enough to follow their CIC no matter how unlawful the order."

And CONSERVATIVES have definitively proven you right.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7920 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
transparent administration?...no criteria to compare to others... meaningless
increasing debt limit? don't venture into economics when you are ignorant hillbilly..
"Fox News erroneously characterized President Obama's comment that raising the debt ceiling would not add to the national debt as false. However, raising the debt ceiling only pertains to obligations already made, and does not authorize new spending that would increase the debt. "
"However, raising the debt ceiling only pertains to obligations already made, and does not authorize new spending that would increase the debt."

If raising the debt ceiling is to cover obligations made...then WHO authorized spending to excede the debt ceiling to begin with...?

So if the debt ceiling is raised...what would stop spending...obligations...to excede the new ceiling...?
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7922 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
Gee, if he lied about Benghazi, how did you find out the truth?... you have agents there feeding you information?....bwhahahahhaha. .. douche bag...
jumping to conclusions without adequate information is not lying... MORON..
especially when it was corrected when information was made available....
"...how did you find out the truth?."

We haven't...yet...douche bag...that's why there are Congressional hearings...ignorance really must be bliss, huh...?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7923 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
transparent administration?...no criteria to compare to others... meaningless
increasing debt limit? don't venture into economics when you are ignorant hillbilly..
"Fox News erroneously characterized President Obama's comment that raising the debt ceiling would not add to the national debt as false. However, raising the debt ceiling only pertains to obligations already made, and does not authorize new spending that would increase the debt. "
In otherwords, it is to cover his ass on obligations that he has already made without the money to make it happen. Thus INCREASING the debt. Obama said something like "you don't buy a truck and then not pay for it". When the truth of tha matter is, you don't sign the contract to buy the truck without having the cash in hand or working out the financing AHEAD OF TIME.

Have you always been a retarded schmuck?
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7924 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
put your dunce hat on...maraudertard
If you think gun control legislation hasnít moved in this country since the Newtown shooting, think again. Thereís been plenty of activity in the states, even though no gun legislation has passed through Congress.
.APPROVED MORE GUN RESTRICTIONS
New York
When: Passed and signed into law Jan. 15.
What it does: The SAFE Act expands the types of guns that fall under the New Yorkís assault weapons ban and requires those who already own such newly-banned guns to register them. The law also requires background checks on private gun sales, except when guns are sold to immediate family members; reduces lawful magazines from 10 to seven bullets; requires health care workers to notify local health officials if they think a patient will cause serious harm to themselves or others; and increases sentences on some gun crimes.
Colorado
When: Passed the week of March 13 and signed into law March 20.
What it does: The gun control laws limit magazines to 15 rounds and expands background checks while requiring a fee for them.
Why it matters: Although Colorado is home to several high-profile mass shootings, itís home to many gun owners. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has faced some backlash from sheriffs over enforcing the law Ė which wouldnít bode well for other Democrats from gun-owning states who are considering gun control legislation. The Colorado law was a much-needed win for gun control advocates; Vice President Joe Biden even personally lobbied Colorado legislators ahead of its passage.
Connecticut
When: Lawmakers approved a deal early Thursday.
What it does: The package expands the list of banned assault weapons; limits magazines to 10 rounds and requires current owners of such guns to register them with the state; bans armor-piercing bullets; closes the background check gun show loophole; and expands mental health research and mental health training for teachers.
Maryland
When: Lawmakers approved gun legislation Wednesday.
What it does: Gov. Martin OíMalleyís initial proposal has been altered by lawmakers numerous times, and there are some differences between the stateís House and Senate version. But common ground includes a requirement to submit fingerprints in order to get a handgun license; limiting magazine rounds to 10 bullets; and an assault weapons ban. He could sign the version the House of Delegates passed Wednesday.
Who said it "hasn't moved"...? Did you read that somewhere...? Not from me...in fact...I even said that violating the 14th Amendment doesn't help their case...so we will see. Colorado has already RECALLED and fired 2 supporters of gun-control and their State is in line to repeal their new laws...so once again...we'll see what happens.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7927 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
jumping to conclusions without adequate information is not lying....
No, but covering up the truth with a bullshit story when you know what the truth is IS a lie. And that lie was perpetuates throughout the alphabet media for over TWO WEEKS after the attack.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7928 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what I'm stating is that you are attributing positions to me that I have specifically denied multiple times.
Honest debate is not simply saying the same thing over and over. You don't change your claims about my position even after you've been corrected. You simply parrot the same talking points over and over. You're not interested in honest debate. You just want a forum to broadcast your propaganda without interruption.
50% of Americans will experience mental illness at some point in their life. Yet you assume that every person with a mental illness is a threat and should be locked up. That shows a staggering ignorance of the facts.
Insulting the intelligence of those who disagree does nothing to decrease the validity of their concerns. So far you version of debate has been nothing more than "I told you so, just accept that I'm right and you're wrong". When you respond this time at least attempt to address the issues I've raised instead of deflecting.
No, what I'M stating is that YOU are attributing positions to ME that I have specifically denied multiple times. And you are continuing to do so with this response as well as insulting my intelligence. I am far from ignorant of the facts my friend. What you are doing is refusing to engage in debate by deflection. You have not corrected my view of your position because you refuse to discuss your position, its flaws, and its consequences. Itís not working.
Why are you so dead set against attacking the problem at its source, the criminals/psychos? Why do you feel the need to negatively affect the lives of millions of law abiding citizens when it is only a microscopic number of people who create the problem? When asked these questions you reply that it is my imagination, youíre doing no such thing. That my friend is a blatant lie. You are advocating for restrictions and regulations of my rights when I have done absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. Thatís a fact. So in reality youíve never answered my questions, youíve simply brushed them aside and used this forum as a pulpit from which to proclaim your infallible opinion. Try actually answering the questions and maybe a debate will occur instead of the Dan says so show.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7929 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
go down to the airport and tell them you refuse to be searched...you rights are being violated....bwhhahahhahahahahh
call the NSA and FBI and tell them you don't want your phone conversations, emails and text messages monitored.... your rights are being violated.... bwhwhhahhhahhahahah
while you are at it, tell them you don't want drones flying over your house because your right are being violated....bbwhahhahahhahaha. ...
YOU ARE A CERTIFIED MORON...
Exactly the response one would expect from a communist insurgent who is also a blithering idiot. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7930 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
so you don't know either, and yet you jumped to the conclusion he lied... bwahahahhahahahh... you enjoy sucking on the dil-do don't you, sausage sucker...
Uh...yeah...it certainly wasn't over some movie and spur of the moment riots..was it...? Talk about being suckered...lol

Pry your head out of your arse and you might learn a few things.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7931 Sep 26, 2013
Squach wrote:
<.
You're most certainly endorsing and supporting measures that limit, restrict, and regulate my personal rights
You don't have a constitutional right to sell any gun, SpoogeSponge, and certainly no matter how hard you insist you do, you do not have a right to sell firearms to other felons, wife beaters, terrorists, or mental cases.

Wipe your chin, dear.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7932 Sep 26, 2013
Squach wrote:
.
I have also said multiple times here that I support strict enforcement of our laws but I do not support any measures that restrict/regulate/penalize those who have committed no crime.
\

And you have been told multiple times you do not have a right to sell assault weapons to fellow felons, wife beaters, terrorists, and mental cases.

No matter how hard and how many times you roll around on the floor demanding special rights.

90 percent of Americans support background checks to stop immoral idiots like you.

PS: obviously, gun control measures do work. Start with the 2 million that were denied access to them.

Sure... many of them just moved on to another table at the same gun show and bought what they wanted from someone just like you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7933 Sep 26, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>No, what I'M stating is that YOU are attributing positions to ME that I have specifically denied multiple times..
You continue to demand the "right" to sell guns to complete and total strangers knowing that felons swarm to events - such as gun shows- that do not perform background checks.

Your position, Sticky.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7934 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And that lie was perpetuates throughout the alphabet media for over TWO WEEKS after the attack.
Those of us who can read found the correction within hours of the attack.

And the gun gnutters continued to insist that the certified NRA loon at Sandy Hook didn't use an assault weapon when he killed all those five and six year olds in Sandy Hook.

Right here on Topix, Spooge.

And we are all still waiting for your lawyer friend to come up with his final version of what happened... like your friend the pedophile in Florida.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7936 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
so you do know? why are they having an investigation then?... bwhahhahahahah.... I told you were having a meltdown.....
maybe you need to turn over all the information you have to the investigators....all of it....make mommy proud....
http://imageshack.us/a/img228/2559/large20shi...
ROTFLMAO...boy you really are working the mommy jokes huh...? Must be so hollow feeling when that's all you have to come back with...lol

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7937 Sep 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those of us who can read found the correction within hours of the attack.
And the gun gnutters continued to insist that the certified NRA loon at Sandy Hook didn't use an assault weapon when he killed all those five and six year olds in Sandy Hook.
Right here on Topix, Spooge.
And we are all still waiting for your lawyer friend to come up with his final version of what happened... like your friend the pedophile in Florida.
What lawyer are you referring to?

Don't know what "friend" you are referring to, but if you are talking about Zimmerman, tell us again how he is going to be rotting away in a jail cell for a long time like you claimed for over a year. And I do believe it was me who made the claim over a year before the verdict that he would NOT be found guilty because THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM.

Try again, asshat.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7938 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
In otherwords, it is to cover his ass on obligations that he has already made without the money to make it happen. Thus INCREASING the debt. Obama said something like "you don't buy a truck and then not pay for it". When the truth of tha matter is, you don't sign the contract to buy the truck without having the cash in hand or working out the financing AHEAD OF TIME.
Have you always been a retarded schmuck?
Wait, what?

You believe that the President obligates federal spending? That he's the one who sets the budget?

And then you have the balls to someone ELSE retarded?

LMAO!

Seriously, you're a kid in middle school, aren't you?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7939 Sep 26, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>No, what I'M stating is that YOU are attributing positions to ME that I have specifically denied multiple times. And you are continuing to do so with this response as well as insulting my intelligence. I am far from ignorant of the facts my friend. What you are doing is refusing to engage in debate by deflection. You have not corrected my view of your position because you refuse to discuss your position, its flaws, and its consequences. Itís not working.
Why are you so dead set against attacking the problem at its source, the criminals/psychos? Why do you feel the need to negatively affect the lives of millions of law abiding citizens when it is only a microscopic number of people who create the problem? When asked these questions you reply that it is my imagination, youíre doing no such thing. That my friend is a blatant lie. You are advocating for restrictions and regulations of my rights when I have done absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. Thatís a fact. So in reality youíve never answered my questions, youíve simply brushed them aside and used this forum as a pulpit from which to proclaim your infallible opinion. Try actually answering the questions and maybe a debate will occur instead of the Dan says so show.
Background checks don't prevent you from getting the firearm you want. A waiting period doesn't prevent you from getting the firearm you want. Limited capacity clips don't restrict your 2nd Amendment rights or prevent you from protecting yourself. Including more information in the NICS doesn't restrict your rights or prevent you from getting the firearm you want.

The regulations I've said I support here do not restrict your rights. You keep claiming that they do, but that simply isn't true.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7940 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Background checks don't prevent you from getting the firearm you want. A waiting period doesn't prevent you from getting the firearm you want. Limited capacity clips don't restrict your 2nd Amendment rights or prevent you from protecting yourself. Including more information in the NICS doesn't restrict your rights or prevent you from getting the firearm you want.
The regulations I've said I support here do not restrict your rights. You keep claiming that they do, but that simply isn't true.
You need to look up the definition of "infringe".

Explain to us how waiting periods, mag capacity, bans on certain weapons, etc. have stopped a criminal from getting whatever weapon he wants. As a law-abiding citizen never convicted of anything more than a speeding infraction......why should I have to jump through hoops in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right??? Why are you still wishing to infringe on the rights of the MILLIONS of LAW-ABIDING people based on the actions of a handful of criminals? Because not only do you wish to infringe on those rights....you wish to create EVEN MORE hoops for the innocent to jump through, and your post above proves just that.

How about this? How about we put those same restrictions on the right to vote like another poster suggested in another thread. that would include needing two forms of ID in order to vote, passing a background check, paying an extra fee for that background check, getting an approval number from the federal govt beofer you can cast a vote, paying an EXTRA fee for the voter registration card like I have to do for my CHP, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Or how about imposing these same requirements in order to speak your mind on a public street. Let's require a $50 fee in order to obtain your "free speech" permit.

After all, those aren't infringements according to you. What do you say? Are you going to call up your congressman and demand those, too???

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 U.S. Military's Space in Trump Tower Costs $130... Aug 7 L I G E R 4
News GW husband, wife face charges in counterfeit case Jul '17 lch2105 2
News Scene & Heard: VP Mike Pence on Sanibel Jul '17 Anthony wright 2
News Illinois man pleads not guilty to threatening t... Jun '17 HOLLA 1
News Secret Service investigating effigy of Presiden... (Jan '10) Jun '17 Trumpenstein bank... 44
News Secret Service relaxes marijuana policy in bid ... Jun '17 RushFan666 6
News Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May '17 Belinda 1
More from around the web