Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8769 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
"Clear enough?"

Almost...how are you going to get the car away from the drunk...? How are you going to stop him from getting into his car and driving off...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8770 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not at all. The first argument does not in any way imply the second. You are making a leap in logic not supported by the facts.
Nope, just the words.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8771 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Asked and answered. Try to keep up.
<quoted text>
More deflection. You haven't answered anything. What you have tried to do is turn the question back on the questioner. It ain't workin'. You made the statement as if it was the gospel and now refuse to substantiate it with supporting facts. Please try to be honest.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8772 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Squash proved that almost immediately.
Unfortunately those of us capable of independent thought and logical reasoning are NOT impressed with your jr high debate tactics like he was.
What would you know about "debate tactics"? You simply refuse engage and constantly deflect. What kind of "debate tactic" is that? I don't think repeating "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" is considered a legitimate "debate tactic". Blind adherence to leftist dogma is not independent thinking.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8773 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
Your logic is flawed here again. Violence without a gun is still violence. Murder without a gun is still murder. So now you are separating "gun violence" from other forms of deadly violence? So if the next mass killer psycho freak uses some other means to kill a dozen innocent people you'll consider it a victory because the victims weren't shot with a gun? What will it take before it dawns on you that the mass killer psycho freaks and criminals out there will not be deterred by your gun control measures. On the other hand, if all of the known violent criminals and known psychos were institutionalized they would be much more effectively deterred by bars and armed guards. It ain't rocket science. Attack the leftist liberal "feel good" policies that have created high speed revolving doors for our prisons and re-institute a system for effectively dealing with the criminally insane.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8775 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>\
so a well regulated militia means a well regulated people...thanks... you just proved armed vet a moron again....bwhhahahahhaha
No, you have just proved yourself to be a moron.....AGAIN.

"Well regulated" at the time of the Founders did NOT mean "controlled through legislation". It meant "the property of something being in proper working order."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8776 Oct 9, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have just proved yourself to be a moron.....AGAIN.
"Well regulated" at the time of the Founders did NOT mean "controlled through legislation". It meant "the property of something being in proper working order."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Carefull now AV, don't hit 'em with too many historical facts at once. You don't want to cause 'em any permanent brain damage. Oh wait! That's probably a moot point.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8780 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
He does not need to prove a thing. It has been proven before SCOTUS who has ruled it is an individual right to keep and bear. Looks like you need to catch up. Of course to all of us who can read we already knew that.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#8781 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
ahhhhh..squach tard is still bitter after the beating I gave him yesterday proving his ignorance...bwhahahhahahahahah ....you never stood a chance moron...you came to battle of wits unarmed.....
OOPS. Opened your mouth to without checking your facts again. Control freaks like you always underestimate your victims. We will not negotiate, we don't need to. You on the other hand can't take our rights. Now go pee on your leg so you can feel better.
MC Hammer

Chambersburg, PA

#8783 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>\
so a well regulated militia means a well regulated people...thanks... you just proved armed vet a moron again....bwhhahahahhaha
hence, you are not a militia by any means, you have no business arming yourself...and you barely hit a urinal, which means you are not qualified to carry or own anything beyond some rubber bands..
Everyone knows exact ally what it means and its definition has already been validated several times by the Supreme Court. Even the leftist idiots understand its meaning and for you to wade in and pretend as if you know what it means makes you look all the more stupider. I just can't believe that "YOU" are seriously trying to change the definition to the 2nd Amendment to suit your own argument because you’re too stupid to educate yourself on what has already been defined for over 200 years. I also think that since you don't even understand the basis of why it was written or its interpretation then how could you even have an accurate perception of an Americans rights. So I'll do you a "Solid" and point you to some basic links to bring you up to speed and maybe you will stop these idiotic nonsensical rants that show your ignorance on the topic of the 2nd Amendment.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-doc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...

The Federalist Papers (A MUST READ)
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers....

You're welcome
MC Hammer

Chambersburg, PA

#8784 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
HAHAHHAHAHHA...This dumbass hack just copy/cut/pasted from WIKIPEDIA and was trying to pass it off as her own opinion by not posting the source. LOL... It doesn't get any lower than this fu@king idiot. This is what the left does when they run out of brain power. Copy/Cut/Paste what they want something to mean and try to fool people about what the truth is.(laughing to hard).

Here is the link he got it from also he SKIPPED over the first paragraph: I wonder why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_ (United_States)

Militia (United States)

The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services).

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8786 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
ahhhhh..squach tard is still bitter after the beating I gave him yesterday proving his ignorance...bwhahahhahahahahah ....you never stood a chance moron...you came to battle of wits unarmed.....
So the Satan worshiping freak is practicing self delusion again. Some things never change, like your level of stupidity. Your laughter is more than a little maniacal. Better have them check your meds. This isn't a battle of wits dopy, I don't take advantage of cripples. Now crawl back under your slimy rock and contemplate your next idiotic comment.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8788 Oct 9, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> George Jones was charged DUI on a lawn mower. There are more cases like being charged DUI while riding a horse. But when you address drunk driving there is no mention or even a hint of banning cars. I have yet to see a news report of a DUI death that named the type of car used, yet "assault weapon" is used even when it is later proven none was present. News groups jump before they even have the facts in cases they can fluff. Do you even have any idea of what car is used most in DUI cases? And yes there are plenty of cases where cars were used as weapons and if you had any brain you would know most of the time they are used in anti gun zones. You simply want to trade one type of violence for another. Sorry but us "pro self defense" citizens "will not negotiate".
Right. over 30,000 auto fatalities in the US so we should address drunk driving lawnmowers and horses.

Is this the best argument you have? Because if it is, you have no argument at all.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8789 Oct 9, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Then again you also forget drunk driving IS legal as long as it's not on a government road. Also You can be charged with DUI even if you are of no danger to yourself or others on the road. There are cases where drivers where charged on closed roads with no other traffic on it and in cases where the driver was operating a very slow vehicle on the shoulder, not in traffic lanes. in fact just sitting in a car on the shoulder while drunk has been used to charge DUI. I have never heard any DUI or other assault by car or even murder by car cases as listed as car violence.
But yet we regulate cars, car ownership, and driving.

Just another in a long line of preventable causes of death that the US regulates. There's no rational reason not to also regulate guns, gun ownership, and gun use.

At least no reason for those who care about their fellow citizens dying needlessly.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8790 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Clear enough?"
Almost...how are you going to get the car away from the drunk...? How are you going to stop him from getting into his car and driving off...?
Marauder's continuing adventures in missing the point.

LOL! You're a funny little guy.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8791 Oct 9, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>More deflection. You haven't answered anything. What you have tried to do is turn the question back on the questioner. It ain't workin'. You made the statement as if it was the gospel and now refuse to substantiate it with supporting facts. Please try to be honest.
Just because you don't like that answer doesn't mean I didn't answer.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8792 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Step...Step...Dodge.

What does ANY of ^that^ have to do with the fact that you have no clue what the term "well-regulated" meant at the time the 2nd Amendment was penned???
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8793 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Heller;

'Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”:“To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).'

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8794 Oct 9, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Your logic is flawed here again. Violence without a gun is still violence. Murder without a gun is still murder. So now you are separating "gun violence" from other forms of deadly violence? So if the next mass killer psycho freak uses some other means to kill a dozen innocent people you'll consider it a victory because the victims weren't shot with a gun? What will it take before it dawns on you that the mass killer psycho freaks and criminals out there will not be deterred by your gun control measures. On the other hand, if all of the known violent criminals and known psychos were institutionalized they would be much more effectively deterred by bars and armed guards. It ain't rocket science. Attack the leftist liberal "feel good" policies that have created high speed revolving doors for our prisons and re-institute a system for effectively dealing with the criminally insane.
Like everyone in this nation, I support punishing crime, prosecuting murderers, making sure people are sentenced fairly and serve their sentences, ensuring people with mental illness get proper treatment, and every other thing you list here.

But IN ADDITION to all those measures (which are not solving the problem) I also support reasonable regulations on guns, gun ownership, and gun use. Why? Because they work.

There is no reasonable doubt that regulations of guns, gun ownership, and gun use reduce gun violence. That is not even an area that reasonable people doubt.

You are simply throwing up every roadblock you can imagine to making America safer and reducing the number of Americans who are killed needlessly every year.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8795 Oct 9, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Since the National Guard was founded roughly 130+ years AFTER the 2nd-A was penned, it is a pretty safe bet that it is NOT what was meant in the 2nd-A. Nice try though.

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 Scene & Heard: VP Mike Pence on Sanibel Tue we the people 2
News Secret Service investigating effigy of Presiden... (Jan '10) Jun 21 Trumpenstein bank... 44
News Secret Service relaxes marijuana policy in bid ... Jun 2 RushFan666 6
News Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May '17 Belinda 1
US Secret Service Clothes (Sep '06) May '17 nikonnicky 28
News Russian hacker faces decades in prison Apr '17 USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr '17 alina 7
More from around the web