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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8248 Oct 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says no one can get their hands on rocket launchers and grenades...?
They're legal to own.
Several 40mm grenade launchers and 40mm ammunition for sale;
http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructi...
But then they are classified as destructive devices requiring special licensing and permits and not covered as "arms" under the 2nd Amendment...so what's your point...?
They're legal to own, but they're hard to buy. That's why almost nobody has them and why they're never used in crimes.

Which pretty much proves that gun control works, doesn't it?

THAT'S the point. LOL!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8249 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are ways of measuring the rate of homicide. And the rate of homicide covers "everyone."
So, no, I'm not asking for much. Just some proof.
Premeditated murder? Okay, tell me what percentage of homicides are premeditated. I guarantee it's a fraction of total homicides and therefore proof that Squash's statement is false.
"There are ways of measuring the rate of homicide. And the rate of homicide covers "everyone."

Yes it does...but that isn't what you asked. You asked a specific question;

"Show me that everyone who ever got so mad he wanted to kill someone still followed through when there wasn't a weapon immediately available."

You seemed to believe that if a "weapon" isn't immediately available, if someone gets mad enough to want to kill, they won't.

"Premeditated murder? Okay, tell me what percentage of homicides are premeditated."

All of the ones where someone got mad enough to want to kill...then waited and planned to do it.

"I guarantee it's a fraction of total homicides and therefore proof that Squash's statement is false."

ROTFLMAO...your "guarantee" is "proof" that someone elses's comment is "false"...that's funny.

Your "guarantee" isn't proof of squat.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8251 Oct 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"There are ways of measuring the rate of homicide. And the rate of homicide covers "everyone."
Yes it does...but that isn't what you asked. You asked a specific question;
Yes, that's the question I asked. Read the paragraph after the one you cherry picked. It further expands on the question:
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Just because killing has always happened doesn't mean that in 21st century America people would be killed at the same RATE as they are being killed by guns now.
Marauder wrote:
"Show me that everyone who ever got so mad he wanted to kill someone still followed through when there wasn't a weapon immediately available."
You seemed to believe that if a "weapon" isn't immediately available, if someone gets mad enough to want to kill, they won't.
Yes, that's what I believe. I believe the research that tells us that many shootings are impulsive or accidental, and that if the deadly weapon that only required 5 pounds of pressure with an index finger wasn't immediately available nobody would have been killed.

The question is, why don't you believe that?
Marauder wrote:
"Premeditated murder? Okay, tell me what percentage of homicides are premeditated."
All of the ones where someone got mad enough to want to kill...then waited and planned to do it.
Sorry, but that's not a percentage, genius.

Care to try again or do you want to just admit that you don't have an answer? LOL!
Marauder wrote:
"I guarantee it's a fraction of total homicides and therefore proof that Squash's statement is false."
ROTFLMAO...your "guarantee" is "proof" that someone elses's comment is "false"...that's funny.
Your "guarantee" isn't proof of squat.
So you believe, without evidence, that premeditated murder comprises 100% of gun homicide in this country?

LMAO! You're as funny as you are dishonest.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8253 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
They're legal to own, but they're hard to buy. That's why almost nobody has them and why they're never used in crimes.
Which pretty much proves that gun control works, doesn't it?
THAT'S the point. LOL!
In your mind...obviously.

"Which pretty much proves that gun control works, doesn't it?"

Why would you think that when those items aren't what you are going after anyway...? You think laws that control the legal purchase and possession of explosive devices would be the same for our Constitutionally protected "arms"...?

"THAT'S the point."

You haven't made a "point".

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8254 Oct 2, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
you went over maraudertard's mental capacity....he is still working basics out... like indoor plumbing....
Riiight.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8257 Oct 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
In your mind...obviously.
"Which pretty much proves that gun control works, doesn't it?"
Why would you think that when those items aren't what you are going after anyway...? You think laws that control the legal purchase and possession of explosive devices would be the same for our Constitutionally protected "arms"...?
"THAT'S the point."
You haven't made a "point".
Laws that control the legal purchase of ANYTHING reduce it's ownership and use.

How about machine guns? There are restrictive laws on them and they are 2nd Amendment "arms." The restrictive laws on machine guns means few people own them and few people are killed by them.

And just because you try to dodge the point doesn't mean I didn't make it. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yeah

Huntsville, AL

#8258 Oct 2, 2013
MC Hammer wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW.. You must be smart...Even after I said SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES you add ALL firearms grouped together. LOL.. You really can't be this [email protected] stupid! Or maybe you can. Do you try to lie like this all the time? Is this how you respond to something you don't like? By posting outright lies? Question: Do your INTENTIONAL attempts to post blatant lies and deception ever bother you? Or do the "Ends Justify the Means"? I've only see liberal liars on TV but I’ve never actually talk to one. From what I can tell, Liberals explode when they are caught in a lie and you will deflect with insults or maybe throw a tantrum. I'm expecting both.
he called out YOUR lame attempt at deception where you are separating out rifles and shotguns (not to mention other types of gun weapons) while boosting the numbers for hammers by adding in all blunt objects whose purpose and function have utility beyond killing, threatening violence, practice shooting and getting your rocks off.

MC Hammer

Chambersburg, PA

#8259 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Right - you said shotguns AND rifles. That means both.
Your stupidity doesn't make me a liar.
The chart makes you a liar. Also it makes you dumber then a bag of hammers because you are the ONLY one who can't seems to comprehend it. Keep trying to distort the numbers, it makes you look like silly. LMAO..It's funny as hell to see you try and warp this into something that against your gun control. No one in their right mind would read it like you did.
MC Hammer

Chambersburg, PA

#8260 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Right - you said shotguns AND rifles. That means both.
Your stupidity doesn't make me a liar.
Hahaha.. 2 seperate catagories.. keep twisting. You now have my permission to continue your distortions. It makes it more entertaining when I can expose your deceptions.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8261 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's the question I asked. Read the paragraph after the one you cherry picked. It further expands on the question:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes, that's what I believe. I believe the research that tells us that many shootings are impulsive or accidental, and that if the deadly weapon that only required 5 pounds of pressure with an index finger wasn't immediately available nobody would have been killed.
The question is, why don't you believe that?
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that's not a percentage, genius.
Care to try again or do you want to just admit that you don't have an answer? LOL!
<quoted text>
So you believe, without evidence, that premeditated murder comprises 100% of gun homicide in this country?
LMAO! You're as funny as you are dishonest.
“Just because killing has always happened doesn't mean that in 21st century America people would be killed at the same RATE as they are being killed by guns now.”

“…at the same RATE as they are being killed by guns now.”…”now”…?…We are in the 21st century, genius.

Between 2009 and 2010, the rate of gun homicide in that nation's 50 most populous metropolitan areas was 4.3 homicides per 100,000 people, down from 5.2 per 100,000 people in years 2006 to 2007, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The decline in gun homicides in U.S. cities mirrors a decline in the country as a whole — nationally, the gun homicide rate declined from 4.2 homicides per 100,000 people to 3.7 homicides per 100,000 people over the same time period. Much of the national decline can be attributed to the cities' decline, the report said.

Homicide rates have been declining in the United States over the last two decades. Factors that may have influenced this decline include shifting demographics, law enforcement response to gun violence and increased incarceration rates, the report says.

And pray tell...HOW would you like to make any or all guns NOT "immediately available"...what would you do..?

"Sorry, but that's not a percentage, genius."

Didn't need to be.

"Care to try again..."

Don't need to...I'm not the one that seems to need that information.

"So you believe, without evidence, that premeditated murder comprises 100% of gun homicide in this country?"

Speaking of being "dishonest"...just where did you get that idea from...?...I never said or implied any such thing.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8262 Oct 2, 2013
MC Hammer wrote:
<quoted text>
The chart makes you a liar. Also it makes you dumber then a bag of hammers because you are the ONLY one who can't seems to comprehend it. Keep trying to distort the numbers, it makes you look like silly. LMAO..It's funny as hell to see you try and warp this into something that against your gun control. No one in their right mind would read it like you did.
Nice try Dodgy McDodger.

Total firearm homicides = 8,653
All rifles and shotguns = 625

How did all those other firearm homicides happen?

Also:
Which number is bigger? 8,653 or 518?

17 times as many people are killed by guns as by blunt objects. Your point is an irrelevant distraction.

It evidently makes you feel good about ignoring the deaths of 32,000 of your fellow Americans every year, but those of us decent, patriotic Americans are more interested in solving the problem than playing juvenile math games.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8263 Oct 2, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so some laws work and some don't...bwhhahahahhahhahahahah ..... what an idiot..they only work if maraudertard thinks they are not constitutionally protected....
this dolt is a riot....
That would be the United States Supreme Court that says that...like they did in DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago...you ignorant, "frustrated control freak".

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8264 Oct 2, 2013
MC Hammer wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha.. 2 seperate catagories.. keep twisting. You now have my permission to continue your distortions. It makes it more entertaining when I can expose your deceptions.
Two separate and utterly meaningless categories.

But as long as you're playing meaningless juvenile number games, you could make the number much smaller. Why don't you break out how many rimfire vs centerfire rifles while you're at it? I'll bet if you tried you could find a class of firearm that kills fewer people than homicide by fire.

In the meantime, 32,000 of your fellow Americans die every year from GUNS. You keep playing your dipshit little games while the serious adults try to actually address that problem (which you don't give a shit about).
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8265 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws that control the legal purchase of ANYTHING reduce it's ownership and use.
How about machine guns? There are restrictive laws on them and they are 2nd Amendment "arms." The restrictive laws on machine guns means few people own them and few people are killed by them.
And just because you try to dodge the point doesn't mean I didn't make it. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'm saying you are mixing apples and oranges;

"How about machine guns? There are restrictive laws on them and they are 2nd Amendment "arms."

Nope.

From Heller;

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after:“[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense.“In the colonial and revolutionary
war era,[small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.”

"...just because you try to dodge the point doesn't mean I didn't make it. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

You still haven't made it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8266 Oct 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying you are mixing apples and oranges;
"How about machine guns? There are restrictive laws on them and they are 2nd Amendment "arms."
Nope.
From Heller;
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after:“[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense.“In the colonial and revolutionary
war era,[small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.”
"...just because you try to dodge the point doesn't mean I didn't make it. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
You still haven't made it.
You certainly are invested in dodging the point.

The point being - legal restrictions reduce ownership and use. Period.

That's true whether we're talking about grenades, machine guns, ammonium nitrate, or prescription drugs. Or long guns and handguns. Regardless of the specific item, legal restrictions work.

Which you know. Otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard on distracting from that point.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8268 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly are invested in dodging the point.
The point being - legal restrictions reduce ownership and use. Period.
That's true whether we're talking about grenades, machine guns, ammonium nitrate, or prescription drugs. Or long guns and handguns. Regardless of the specific item, legal restrictions work.
Which you know. Otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard on distracting from that point.
"Regardless of the specific item, legal restrictions work.
Which you know. Otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard on distracting from that point."

It's not distracting when those so called "legal restrictions" are placed on a Constitutionally protected "item". You know, something commonly referred to as "rights". Something that you will continually "distract" from or ignore is that right "shall not be infringed".

At one time the DC law banning handguns was seen as a "legal restriction"...same thing for Chicago's...but guess what...?...they infringed on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

That's why I work so hard...to support and defend the Constitution from further infringement from "reasonable gun safety measures"...or "closing the gun show loophole" that doesn't exist.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8271 Oct 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Regardless of the specific item, legal restrictions work.
Which you know. Otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard on distracting from that point."
It's not distracting when those so called "legal restrictions" are placed on a Constitutionally protected "item". You know, something commonly referred to as "rights". Something that you will continually "distract" from or ignore is that right "shall not be infringed".
At one time the DC law banning handguns was seen as a "legal restriction"...same thing for Chicago's...but guess what...?...they infringed on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
That's why I work so hard...to support and defend the Constitution from further infringement from "reasonable gun safety measures"...or "closing the gun show loophole" that doesn't exist.
I thought you loved Heller. I'm not proposing anything inconsistent with that opinion. The Heller opinion says restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are constitutional.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8272 Oct 2, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
that's correct dip$-hit... the supreme court and congress will decide which guns, ammo, and accessories are covered by the constitution....
the point was that controls work.. which is why criminals and mentally sick or average citizen cannot access rocket launchers, grenades, dynamite or C-4 explosives...
yes, I know, if the president approves it, you can....good luck with that argument moron...
blah...blah...blah...

"Miller did not hold that and
cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment
in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge
two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered
short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in
violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is
entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the
Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants
were “bear[ing] arms” not “for ... military purposes”
but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that
the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second
Amendment protection:“In the absence of any evidence
tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled
shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added).“Certainly,”
the Court continued,“it is not within judicial notice that
this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment
or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Looks to me like the court already addressed that by this comment. It also shows support for the protection of those nasty, black so called "assault rifles"...you know, those AR-15 variations and their standard 30 rnd magazines.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8273 Oct 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Regardless of the specific item, legal restrictions work.
Which you know. Otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard on distracting from that point."
It's not distracting when those so called "legal restrictions" are placed on a Constitutionally protected "item". You know, something commonly referred to as "rights". Something that you will continually "distract" from or ignore is that right "shall not be infringed".
At one time the DC law banning handguns was seen as a "legal restriction"...same thing for Chicago's...but guess what...?...they infringed on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
That's why I work so hard...to support and defend the Constitution from further infringement from "reasonable gun safety measures"...or "closing the gun show loophole" that doesn't exist.
BTW - DC's handgun law was considered constitutional under the interpretation that had been in effect since the beginning of our nation - that the right was collective for the purpose of maintaining a militia. All historical legal precedent supported that interpretation.

It wasn't until this activist court ignored legal precedent that the right to keep and bear arms came to be an individual right.

So you are wrong - those laws were not unconstitutional...until 2008 when the conservative court abandoned it's stated philosophy of judicial restraint and original intent in favor of accommodating a popular new understanding of the Constitution.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8274 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you loved Heller. I'm not proposing anything inconsistent with that opinion. The Heller opinion says restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are constitutional.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
All of which is already being done...as they stated. Did you by chance notice the comment regarding "commercial sale of arms"...?...also already being done. There is no "loophole" there, is there...?

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 Prosecutors want Shkreli's bail revoked over Cl... Sep '17 Minnesota Mike 3
News U.S. Military's Space in Trump Tower Costs $130... Aug '17 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
More from around the web