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

#7941 Sep 26, 2013
Oh, I got another one. This goes along the same lines as waiting periods and one-gun-a-month laws. How about you get to use your right to free speech, but you have to wait until next Thursday to post a reply to this post, and then, you only get to reply with 50 words or less??? If you go over that, you are charged with a felony.

Sound good?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7942 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?
Take four minutes and educate yourself.

The Debt Limit Explained


Ideally, when people realize they believe false things about the President, they re-evaluate their opinions about the President when they get the facts.

But the rightwing in America is completely immune to that. No, since they have a visceral hatred of President Obama, the facts play no part at all in their relentless over-the-top attacks on him.

Hell, the right believed Obama was restricting their gun rights since his first inauguration when he had, in fact, EXPANDED gun rights during his first term. Some will even argue with me about this fact, preferring to believe the alternate reality the rightwing propaganda machine has created to real-world facts about Obama's presidency.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7943 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
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???
You confusing "infringe" with "inconvenience." Your rights aren't being restricted by not having whatever you want IMMEDIATELY.

And as soon as 32,000 Americans a year die from voting, I'll be first in line to lobby for voting safety regulations.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#7944 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Oh, I got another one. This goes along the same lines as waiting periods and one-gun-a-month laws. How about you get to use your right to free speech, but you have to wait until next Thursday to post a reply to this post, and then, you only get to reply with 50 words or less??? If you go over that, you are charged with a felony.
Sound good?
You make it sound like making comments on this privately owned forum is somehow subject to 1st Amendment rights.

Evidently you're as confused about free speech as you are about which branch of government obligates spending. LOL!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7945 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Take four minutes and educate yourself.
The Debt Limit Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =KIbkoop4AYEXX
Ideally, when people realize they believe false things about the President, they re-evaluate their opinions about the President when they get the facts.
But the rightwing in America is completely immune to that. No, since they have a visceral hatred of President Obama, the facts play no part at all in their relentless over-the-top attacks on him.
Hell, the right believed Obama was restricting their gun rights since his first inauguration when he had, in fact, EXPANDED gun rights during his first term. Some will even argue with me about this fact, preferring to believe the alternate reality the rightwing propaganda machine has created to real-world facts about Obama's presidency.
Just like with any other president, especially like the lashing Bush took for eight years, the man in the big chair gets the blame for what happens in his administration. And that is exactly what I was referring to about the debt limit.

And if you are talking about the national parks carry law passed during his first term when you say "expanding gun rights"...... that is only because it was attached by the republicans to a credit card bill which he signed. Do you honestly think that one of the most anti-gun senators to come out of IL would have actually signed the national parks carry bill if it was a stand-alone bill????

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7946 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You confusing "infringe" with "inconvenience." Your rights aren't being restricted by not having whatever you want IMMEDIATELY.
And as soon as 32,000 Americans a year die from voting, I'll be first in line to lobby for voting safety regulations.
Back to the old (and very tired) 32,000 number huh??
spin spin spin spin

And it doesn't matter if no one dies from voting. According to you, those aren't infringements, right? We'll just call them "inconveniences".

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7947 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You confusing "infringe" with "inconvenience." Your rights aren't being restricted by not having whatever you want IMMEDIATELY.
Tell that to the woman who wants to go down and get a gun to protect herself from an abusive husband or boyfriend who has just threatened to kill her. I'm sure you think that the restraining order that she took on him last week will do just fine, but as a woman found out here a few years ago.....that paper won't stop shit.(she died while on the phone with 9-1-1 at the hands of her estranged husband)

Right there is a PERFECT example of your gun control laws putting this law-abiding woman's life in danger and leaving her defenseless.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7948 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.
Do you honestly believe what you just posted? The decision making process for those background checks is controlled by the very people who shouldn't be controlling it. I have already seen cases of people being turned down for reasons that are ludicrous. The criteria for acceptance are arbitrary at best and can be changed at the whim of the power in control. Name one other constitutionally guaranteed right that you are required to submit to a background check, waiting period, or other such nonsense before you're "ALLOWED" to exercise that right. Since when do Americans need to be "ALLOWED" to exercise their constitutional rights? The fact that you insist these measures are not steps taken by those who would completely disarm the citizenry, that it is a "chipping away" process, and the end goal is a total ban on firearms in America means that you are extremely naive or you are duplicitous. Restrict, regulate, and abrogate the rights of those who abuse them and create the problem while leaving law abiding Americans rights and freedoms untouched and unhindered, then you'll find that I support your efforts.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7952 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
closing gitmo??? gee, I wonder what is he to with them since COngress has blocked it... dumb a$$
from washington post:
"Sounds simple enough, right? Except that the first two routes civilian trial or military tribunal were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them."
Oh, and I almost forgot about the biggest lie of all. This is a quote from Obama back in 2008:

"In fact, I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any tax increase. Not your income tax. Not your payroll tax. Not your capital gains taxes. Not any of your taxes."

Not only did he raise taxes, he signed the largest tax bill IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. Obamacare ring a bell?

1. ObamaCare Medicare Device Tax
2. ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
3. ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Tax
4. ObamaCare SuperSaver Tax Surtax
5. ObamaCare Medical Payroll Tax Increase
6. ObamaCare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax
7. ObamaCare Employer Mandate Tax
8. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers
9. ObamaCare Tax on Union Member and Early Retiree Health Insurance Plans

Want to tell the group again how Obama never lies???

LMAO!!!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7955 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and I almost forgot about the biggest lie of all. This is a quote from Obama back in 2008:
"In fact, I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any tax increase.
Gosh... a president that promises no new taxes...

Read my lips, eh, SpoogeSponge.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7956 Sep 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Not only did he raise taxes, he signed the largest tax bill IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.
You have to swallow between mouthfuls of spunk, SpoogeSponge.

The largest tax increase in dollar values was Ronald Reagan's 1982 tax increase, shug.

In actual fact.

And as percentage of GDP, it would be 1968, when we were paying for Vietnam (unlike the Bush administration which deferred payments onto the next generation)... with Ronald Reagan's 1982 tax increase being second, and with the Affordable Care Act being seventh.

Putting aside the ACA actually does something.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7957 Sep 26, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Do you honestly believe what you just posted? The decision making process for those background checks is controlled
Ninety percent of Americans are smart enough to understand the need for background checks for all gun sales- that those who cannot pass the background checks now swarm to gun shows like the one SpoogeSponge holds the door open in Virgina as the felons push their way in.
FormerParatroope r

Charleston, SC

#7958 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
But corruption isn't what we were talking about. Dictatorship is what we were talking about.
The gang in Athens wasn't faced with anything African Americans have been faced with for decades in this country. No reasonable person would justify their taking up arms to correct the problem, would they?
Why bring African Americans into the discussion? If you want to go there, after the Civil War the Southern States attempted to keep former slaves disarmed, claiming they were not Americans, therefore not coveted under the Constitution.

The KKK and other racists supported the concept, it made their victims defenseless.

No reasonable person would watch a County pervert the law, hide ballot boxes and and do nothing. After the Feds investigated, no one was held accountable, the local government applied pressure and the citizens revolted...that's the short of it. So after the ballot box, after petitioning for redress, then arms were taken up. What would you have done?
FormerParatroope r

Charleston, SC

#7959 Sep 26, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to get defensive. I was just explaining why I was having trouble following your questions. I didn't want you to think I was intentionally avoiding them.
I've already explained several times why I asked gunners here why firearms shouldn't be regulated. I explained why I was not asserting that they are not regulated.
There is a pervasive argument here that any regulation of guns that impacts law abiding citizens is unconstitutional; and that gun laws should only target criminals. In order to expose the illogic of that assertion, I have made the statement that they are not two separate, distinct, non-overlapping categories of people .
Actually I was being considerate letting you know I am not always online and that is why at times there is a lag.

I don't agree. Laws such as drunk driving do not target people who don't d&d. Laws against murder, rape and the such are not targeted at people who don't commit these crimes. Why should any law target anyone who is not part of the problem? Common sense dictates to stop a problem you deal with those who are part of the problem.

The question I asked was not included in your post.
FormerParatroope r

Charleston, SC

#7960 Sep 26, 2013
I see wrote:
<quoted text>
so bring on the guns? Yee haw.
Are you in middle school?
If you know the facts of the incident, what would you have done differently? Or are you unable to converse beyond juvenile insults?
Diogenes

UK

#7961 Sep 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh... a president that promises no new taxes...
Read my lips, eh, SpoogeSponge.
And imagine that: YOU have it in mind to CONTROL the acts of ALL OTHER PEOPLE.

Yeah, imagine that.

WHY would =>YOU<= desire to control the acts of =ALL= other humans, AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

WHY?!??!

SPEAK THE TRUTH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7962 Sep 26, 2013
Diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
And imagine that: YOU have it in mind to CONTROL the acts of ALL OTHER PEOPLE.
Apparently not: you are still here.
Marauder

North Pole, AK

#7964 Sep 26, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
it is a real toss up who is the bigger F-uk-tard, armed veterantard or maraudertard...
it is going to take some serious evaluation....
No toss up for that at all...YOU win, hands down.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7966 Sep 27, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
from snopes.com ....can you say "BUSTED"....
A Medical Device Excise Tax did go into effect Jan. 1, 2013
A 2.3% medical device excise tax imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("Obamacare") did, in fact, take effect as of Jan. 1, 2013, but according to the IRS it does not apply to consumer purchases: "Because the tax is imposed upon the sale of a taxable medical device by the manufacturer or importer, the manufacturer or importer is responsible for reporting and paying the tax."
And who do you think they are going to pass that expense on to. You think they are just going to eat it and smile?{rolls eyes}

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#7968 Sep 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ninety percent of Americans are smart enough to understand the need for background checks for all gun sales- that those who cannot pass the background checks now swarm to gun shows like the one SpoogeSponge holds the door open in Virgina as the felons push their way in.
No, people are buying guns now so they won't be turned down for having a jay-walking ticket in 1971. If felons were the only people who could be rejected I might not feel as strongly against background checks but that is not the case and you know it. In this area the state police are in charge of background checks and their disposition. You'd better hope you have a friend on the force or a friend in office because they are refusing people for anything that that can get away with. There are thousands of appeals and law suits already clogging the process. Propose a measure that penalizes the felons without restricting, regulating, or abrogating the rights and freedoms of those who have committed no crime and you'll find that I support your efforts.

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