Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11002 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.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8505 Oct 5, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
well, you have certainly achieved your goals...mwahhahahahahhahaha
we are all proud of you
http://imageshack.us/a/img97/9069/retardrecei...
More childish stupidity, I'll bet no one saw that coming.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8507 Oct 6, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
wow.. the tard got me with that one... you can bend over now and squachtard and armedvetard will reward you....
http://imageshack.us/a/img64/676/3some.gif
Sorry, pal. I don't hit from your side of the plate (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8511 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not, I'm blaming you for being deliberately disingenuous.
LOL! Give it up. Every time you come with that bogus attack I prove you wrong. When will you ever learn?

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8512 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>And true is true. The true meaning of the words in our constitution NOT your interpretation made to fit your revisionist history and your socialistic agenda. Face it Danny Boy, you're the one attempting to revise the constitution to fit your ideology and I'm the one standing firm on the true meaning and intent of the founders. This government was not created to control the people, it was created to be controlled by and to serve the people. I know you desperately wish that wasn't true. But guess what.........true is true.
If you can't even acknowledge that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is an interpretation then there's no reasoning with you.

You have an interpretation. I have an interpretation. The SCOTUS has had several interpretations. You happen to agree with the most recent one (or at least most of it), but that certainly doesn't mean your interpretation is "the true meaning and intent of the founders."

There is overwhelming evidence that the founders' intent was specifically related regulating militias. Heller is an activist decision that abandons originalism in favor of a politically popular position.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8513 Oct 7, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope...you did in post #582 by butting in on a conversation you were not part of. Like I said....I only respond in like kind. Don't like it........DON'T START IT.
Butting in to a conversation isn't a personal attack.

And YOU were the one whining about personal attacks, not me. I'm not complaining about it, you are.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8514 Oct 7, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Youo know. I am curious, Foot, how you ALWAYS seem to pop up and Dan seems to disappear at the same time. I mean once and no one would even notice. Twice could be just a coincidence. But routinely all the time????? Things that make you go "hmmmmm".
Yeah, and when we're both posting at the same time you think THAT'S proof we're the same person.

Serious people make up their minds AFTER seeing the evidence.
But you make up your mind first then point to anything and everything evidence to support it.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8515 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You noticed that too, eh?
Same self-fulfilling delusional thinking pattern, same irrational conclusions.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8516 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't even acknowledge that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is an interpretation then there's no reasoning with you.
You have an interpretation. I have an interpretation. The SCOTUS has had several interpretations. You happen to agree with the most recent one (or at least most of it), but that certainly doesn't mean your interpretation is "the true meaning and intent of the founders."
There is overwhelming evidence that the founders' intent was specifically related regulating militias. Heller is an activist decision that abandons originalism in favor of a politically popular position.
"There is overwhelming evidence that the founders' intent was specifically related regulating militias. Heller is an activist decision that abandons originalism in favor of a politically popular position."

But for some reason, YOU just can't seem to put your fingers on any of this "evidence"...why is that...?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8517 Oct 7, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
OK....so using YOUR WORDS, if we both "share a common origin" (meaning genetically we started the same), and evolution is a true proven fact, why are there still apes???
Can you even hear what you're saying? It makes no logical sense.

You are almost genetically identical to your first cousins, then why do you still have cousins?

Answer: common ancestor.

Take a second. Think it through. I'll wait.

LOL!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8518 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Give it up. Every time you come with that bogus attack I prove you wrong. When will you ever learn?
LOL!
There's nothing bogus about it Danny Boy. You were being disingenuous and attempting to portray slavery as the sole reason for the 2nd amendment. I called you on it. Stop thinking that you get to dictate reality. You can't call it a debate if all you're going to do is say "I'm right no matter what the facts are". That's leftist dogma not debate. So laugh all you like........the joke's on you.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8519 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't even acknowledge that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is an interpretation then there's no reasoning with you.
You have an interpretation. I have an interpretation. The SCOTUS has had several interpretations. You happen to agree with the most recent one (or at least most of it), but that certainly doesn't mean your interpretation is "the true meaning and intent of the founders."
There is overwhelming evidence that the founders' intent was specifically related regulating militias. Heller is an activist decision that abandons originalism in favor of a politically popular position.
I am not standing firm on "my interpretation" of the second amendment, I stand by the interpretation of those who authored it. I think their interpretation trumps any of yours. There is overwhelming evidence that the founders' intent was to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT from infringing on state and individual rights under the supreme law of the land. The constitution was in no way meant to restrict the freedom of the American people, quite the contrary as a matter of fact. The Heller ruling was made perfectly in line with "originalism".
Geez

Huntsville, AL

#8520 Oct 7, 2013
MC Hammer wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Make an attempt to proofread your obscene posts before you call anybody else "dumb".

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8521 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Same self-fulfilling delusional thinking pattern, same irrational conclusions.
Once again, Danny Boy, you do not get to dictate reality. There is nothing delusional about noticing a pattern. The pattern is there for all to see. I offered no opinion, just an observation that the pattern exists. Now if you'd care to cease and desist the personal attacks and direct your attention to the subject of the debate..........

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8524 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing bogus about it Danny Boy. You were being disingenuous and attempting to portray slavery as the sole reason for the 2nd amendment. I called you on it. Stop thinking that you get to dictate reality. You can't call it a debate if all you're going to do is say "I'm right no matter what the facts are". That's leftist dogma not debate. So laugh all you like........the joke's on you.
I linked to an article and quoted a summary line from it. The rest was your fertile imagination.

It's your way or no way, isn't it? However you call it, that's exactly how it is. Any dispute is summarily dismissed by your superior knowledge and intellect.

Well, guess what Squash - nobody has to go your way just because you say so. It's this sort of condescending arrogance that makes it impossible to have a rational debate with you.

Get over yourself.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8525 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I am not standing firm on "my interpretation" of the second amendment, I stand by the interpretation of those who authored it. I think their interpretation trumps any of yours. There is overwhelming evidence that the founders' intent was to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT from infringing on state and individual rights under the supreme law of the land. The constitution was in no way meant to restrict the freedom of the American people, quite the contrary as a matter of fact. The Heller ruling was made perfectly in line with "originalism".
LIke I said - if you can't even acknowledge that your opinion is an interpretation, there's no way to have rational debate with you.

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8526 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, Danny Boy, you do not get to dictate reality. There is nothing delusional about noticing a pattern. The pattern is there for all to see. I offered no opinion, just an observation that the pattern exists. Now if you'd care to cease and desist the personal attacks and direct your attention to the subject of the debate..........
You see a pattern where none exists. It's nothing but your imagination. I post under one name and one name only.

The pattern that I've seen repeated here is that those who spend the most time accusing others of posting under multiple names eventually are revealed to be posting under multiple names.

And for the record - acknowledging a thinking pattern that's not based on reason and logic isn't a personal attack. It's a criticism about a behavior, not an attack on your character.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8527 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I linked to an article and quoted a summary line from it. The rest was your fertile imagination.
It's your way or no way, isn't it? However you call it, that's exactly how it is. Any dispute is summarily dismissed by your superior knowledge and intellect.
Well, guess what Squash - nobody has to go your way just because you say so. It's this sort of condescending arrogance that makes it impossible to have a rational debate with you.
Get over yourself.
It's quite obvious to everyone but you that you're the one who needs to get over yourself. When I call it, that's usually exactly how it is because I set my personal opinions and beliefs (which, by the way, don't always agree with the founders) aside and look at the facts. YOU are the one who summarily dismisses any facts or arguments that disagree with your precinceived notions. Now you wish to complain when I summarily dismiss your pseudo-intellectual deflections. Go figure.......

My name is not "Squash". Weren't you the one who was crying about personal attacks and insults? Please try to be honest and practice what you preach.

No, the lack of willingness to engage in a debate is all yours my friend and you prove it with every post. You spend more time worrying about paragraphs and personal insults than discussing the topic. I have tried dilligently to engage you in civil debate and you siply refuse to acknowledge the facts in favor of your own erroneous interpretation of reality. Try again.....

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8528 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Butting in to a conversation isn't a personal attack.
And YOU were the one whining about personal attacks, not me. I'm not complaining about it, you are.
Go back and re-read the last paragraph. And you have been whining about persoanl attacks since you got here, so STFU.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8529 Oct 7, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I linked to an article and quoted a summary line from it. The rest was your fertile imagination.
It's your way or no way, isn't it? However you call it, that's exactly how it is. Any dispute is summarily dismissed by your superior knowledge and intellect.
Well, guess what Squash - nobody has to go your way just because you say so. It's this sort of condescending arrogance that makes it impossible to have a rational debate with you.
Get over yourself.
LMAO!!!!

Pot.....meet kettle.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8530 Oct 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>It's quite obvious to everyone but you that you're the one who needs to get over yourself. When I call it, that's usually exactly how it is because I set my personal opinions and beliefs (which, by the way, don't always agree with the founders) aside and look at the facts. YOU are the one who summarily dismisses any facts or arguments that disagree with your precinceived notions. Now you wish to complain when I summarily dismiss your pseudo-intellectual deflections. Go figure.......
My name is not "Squash". Weren't you the one who was crying about personal attacks and insults? Please try to be honest and practice what you preach.
No, the lack of willingness to engage in a debate is all yours my friend and you prove it with every post. You spend more time worrying about paragraphs and personal insults than discussing the topic. I have tried dilligently to engage you in civil debate and you siply refuse to acknowledge the facts in favor of your own erroneous interpretation of reality. Try again.....
From my perspective, everything you wrote in your first paragraph applies to you. I believe that's called Freudian projection.

If you can't be bothered to spell your name correctly, why demand that of others?

And...your last paragraph applies to you as well.

Sorry, friend - but projecting your own failures onto me won't win the debate for you. Come back when you can be bothered to address the facts. LOL!

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 Cleveland prepares for RNC convention protests May '16 Hostis Publicus 9
News Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offen... May '16 Jelly Belly Popcorn 3
News Man shot outside White House remains in critica... May '16 WeTheSheeple 2
News Secret Service agent shoots armed man outside W... May '16 Bama Yankee 16
News Bill Clinton ditched Secret Service on multiple... May '16 IsTrumpDodgingThis 2
News Bill Clinton's SICK Truth Just EXPOSED -... May '16 IsTrumpDodgingThis 10
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog Apr '16 Jaimie 6
More from around the web