Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion 11,004

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.

Read more

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8810 Oct 9, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Selfishness and greed are not crimes??? Insider trading...a crime based on both. Cheating on your taxes....a crime based on both.
Wait. What? "Based on..."

LOL! I think you just proved my point.
Armed Veteran wrote:
Adultery....depends on what culture you live in, plus, it is specifically mentioned as a crime in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Jealousy? Not by itself, but it is when turned into stalking, physical abuse, or murder, isn't it?
Neglect IS a crime. Just heard a report this morning of two parents just arrested for the 2nd time for child neglect. They had 4 kids, the oldest was six, none of which could talk...only grunt, living in squallor in a house filled with human and animal feces. Sick m-fers who should be sterilized.
And hatred isn't a crime??? Ever heard of hate-crimes legislation and laws (discrimination)? They have been around for awhile.
I could keep going, but my point has been made. That point being that you are basically full of shit.
None of the things I mentioned are crimes. They may be the basis of crimes, but they themselves are not crimes.

A point which you yourself have inadvertently made here.

The only other point you've made is revealing how pathetically desperate you are to try to prove me wrong - even when I'm completely, undeniably right. You have to torture logic to make the "point" you think you're making. It's a sign of your growing obsession with knee-jerk disagreeing with anything I say.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#8811 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Heller;
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 has been covered before. You are talking about expanding on that with additional restrictions on lawful gun owners and expanding the "conditions and qualifications" on the sale of arms beyond the existing commercial application (the non-existant "gun show loophole")

"There's no rational reason not to also regulate guns, gun ownership, and gun use."

The "rational reason" is nothing you have proposed would prevent criminals from getting a firearm and would only put more hurdles and restrictions on lawful gun owners or those who wish to legally purchase a firearm. Your focus for your laws has been towards the control of the gun instead of on control of the criminal.

Gun use is already controlled as much as it can be...gun ownership...what's to control...? Guns themselves...control how...?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8812 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
nothing you have proposed would prevent criminals from getting a firearm and would only put more hurdles and restrictions on lawful gun owners or those who wish to legally purchase a firearm. Your focus for your laws has been towards the control of the gun instead of on control of the criminal.
Gun use is already controlled as much as it can be...gun ownership...what's to control...? Guns themselves...control how...?
You are quite simply wrong. You may believe that, but in the real world, all the evidence points the other direction.

Where there is strict gun regulation, gun deaths are a fraction of the US.

Guns are not regulated as much as they can be. There's no basis in reality to make that claim.

You have chosen to prioritize your ideological beliefs over objective reality. That's your choice. Just don't expect those of us living in the reality based universe to agree or go along with your extremist agenda.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8813 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If we were doing all of those things properly and effectively there would be no need for anything IN ADDITION. The only way to stop/reduce the intentional killing of innocent people is the elimination/control of those with the intent.

I'm not throwing up every roadblock I can think of to making America safer and reducing the number of innocent Americans who are killed. I have done no such thing. Please try to be honest. I'm throwing up roadblocks to prevent the erosion of American freedom and individual rights while pointing directly at the real problem and making valid suggestions of how we can reduce the violence without infringing on the rights of law abiding honest citizens. Just because you don't like the fact that I see right through the firearms straw man argument doesn't indicate that I support doing nothing. It just means that I do not support doing the wrong thing, like you do.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8814 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I DID answer the question. I've posted it for you twice. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer.
But YOU didn't answer my question, did you? YOu didn't even try. YOu just keep deflecting it back to me in order to dodge it.
You claimed most gun killings are done by criminals and psychos, but you don't have a source for that. I asked for your source, but instead of answering, you want me to prove you wrong.
I'm done with this game, Squash. If you want to keep playing it, you're going to have to play with yourself.
LOL!
No, you didn't. So your white flag of surrender is graciously accepted and we can relegate your rediculous comment to the realm of pure subjective conjecture. Thank you.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#8815 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Oh, I see why you're confused. You leaped to the illogical conclusion that my DESCRIPTION of the necessary components to drunk driving (a drunk, a car) was advocating for confiscating cars.
Your thinking and reasoning handicap got the better of you again, didn't it? So sad.
No, I only meant that without a car involved, it can't be drunk driving. I wasn't prescribing a solution. I was describing the situation.
As I've already explained. In terms any person whose mind isn't clouded with irrational paranoia could understand.
Why would you think a logical conclusion based on your expressed position and previous posts would be "illogical"...?

Oh wait, I know the answer to this one...because you don't have any idea what your agenda is...right..?

You don't have a clue as to what you want to recommend in regards to guns, gun ownership or gun use.

Only that if a gun wasn't available...gun crime wouldn't exist...right..?

So basically, when you make the same comments in regards to guns...you aren't

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8817 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait. What? "Based on..."
LOL! I think you just proved my point.
And you would be wrong.....again. Deny it all you want. It still won't change the fact that the moral code (and most of it) HAS been codified into current laws.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#8818 Oct 9, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You are quite simply wrong. You may believe that, but in the real world, all the evidence points the other direction.
Where there is strict gun regulation, gun deaths are a fraction of the US.
Guns are not regulated as much as they can be. There's no basis in reality to make that claim.
You have chosen to prioritize your ideological beliefs over objective reality. That's your choice. Just don't expect those of us living in the reality based universe to agree or go along with your extremist agenda.
Now see...?...there you go again. Why can't you read what I wrote...NOT what you think or wish I wrote....?

"Guns are not regulated as much as they can be. There's no basis in reality to make that claim."

I didn't make that claim as you say...did I...?

"Where there is strict gun regulation, gun deaths are a fraction of the US."

Do "they" have a Constitution that protects their rights...? Do "they" have an individual right to keep and bear arms...?...How about within the US...? Tell me how those strict gun regulations are working against the criminal elements.

"You have chosen to prioritize your ideological beliefs over objective reality."

I have chosen to continue to abide by my oath...even long after my retirement...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So is your reference to “ideological beliefs” in reference to the military oath…?…more of your elitism coming thru..?

“Just don't expect those of us living in the reality based universe to agree or go along with your extremist agenda.”

I don’t expect you to agree and don’t care if you do or not…that is your prerogative…just as it is mine to disagree with your extremist agenda (even if you haven’t thought about it yet…but we both know you have)…HOWEVER…when legislation gets passed in the State or Federal level…or the Supreme Court says “ya, you do have an individual right”…then you just might have to “go along”…or not, by breaking the law. We all get choices to make.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8819 Oct 9, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Look who's talking. That quote was a personal opinion by only one of the members. NOT a ruling.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S.___(2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."

Wipe your chin, dear.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8820 Oct 9, 2013
Tray wrote:
Gosh next time you should study law and court rulings before placing that nasty foot in your mouth.
Gosh, you should be more concerned with the things you have in your mouth- with AIDS running rampant in your community.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8821 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now see...?...there you go again. Why can't you read what I wrote...NOT what you think or wish I wrote....?
So whines the queen of the paraphrase.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8822 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
I have chosen to continue to abide by my oath...even long after my retirement...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Just as long as they agree with you, eh, Mooch.

Before the Second Amendment- which you have demonstrated a woeful lack of comprehension- comes the first.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8823 Oct 9, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>No, you didn't. So your white flag of surrender is graciously accepted and we can relegate your rediculous comment to the realm of pure subjective conjecture. Thank you.
LOL! Keep dreaming. Because that's the only place where this fantasy is true.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8824 Oct 9, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>If we were doing all of those things properly and effectively there would be no need for anything IN ADDITION. The only way to stop/reduce the intentional killing of innocent people is the elimination/control of those with the intent.
I'm not throwing up every roadblock I can think of to making America safer and reducing the number of innocent Americans who are killed. I have done no such thing. Please try to be honest. I'm throwing up roadblocks to prevent the erosion of American freedom and individual rights while pointing directly at the real problem and making valid suggestions of how we can reduce the violence without infringing on the rights of law abiding honest citizens. Just because you don't like the fact that I see right through the firearms straw man argument doesn't indicate that I support doing nothing. It just means that I do not support doing the wrong thing, like you do.
Still dreaming I see.

Come back when you wake up.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8825 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you think a logical conclusion based on your expressed position and previous posts would be "illogical"...?
Oh wait, I know the answer to this one...because you don't have any idea what your agenda is...right..?
You don't have a clue as to what you want to recommend in regards to guns, gun ownership or gun use.
Only that if a gun wasn't available...gun crime wouldn't exist...right..?
So basically, when you make the same comments in regards to guns...you aren't
I'm crystal clear on my agenda. It's you who don't have any idea what it is. You've fabricated an agenda for me out of whole cloth and continue to argue with it rather than with what I've actually proposed.

And I can't help you with your thought disorder. I've plainly explained what I meant. Your decision to ignore it in favor of your imagined meaning is just another symptom of your disorder.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8826 Oct 9, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And you would be wrong.....again. Deny it all you want. It still won't change the fact that the moral code (and most of it) HAS been codified into current laws.
Okay, prove it.

I supported my claim. Now you do the same.

Can you?

Will you even try?

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8827 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now see...?...there you go again. Why can't you read what I wrote...NOT what you think or wish I wrote....?
"Guns are not regulated as much as they can be. There's no basis in reality to make that claim."
I didn't make that claim as you say...did I...?
Of course you did.
Marauder wrote:
Gun use is already controlled as much as it can be.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8828 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<
"Where there is strict gun regulation, gun deaths are a fraction of the US."
Do "they" have a Constitution that protects their rights...? Do "they" have an individual right to keep and bear arms...?...How about within the US...? Tell me how those strict gun regulations are working against the criminal elements.
It was smart to not even try to refute the facts. Diversion was definitely your best move.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8829 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
"You have chosen to prioritize your ideological beliefs over objective reality."
I have chosen to continue to abide by my oath...even long after my retirement...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So is your reference to “ideological beliefs” in reference to the military oath…?…more of your elitism coming thru..?
LOL! More of your vivid imagination at work - thinking I was somehow disparaging military service.

As long as you continue to draw conclusions about me based on your imagination rather than what I've actually said, you're going to continue to say stupid shit like this. I recommend you try listening to what I actually say for a change.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8830 Oct 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
“Just don't expect those of us living in the reality based universe to agree or go along with your extremist agenda.”
I don’t expect you to agree and don’t care if you do or not…that is your prerogative…just as it is mine to disagree with your extremist agenda (even if you haven’t thought about it yet…but we both know you have)…HOWEVER…when legislation gets passed in the State or Federal level…or the Supreme Court says “ya, you do have an individual right”…then you just might have to “go along”…or not, by breaking the law. We all get choices to make.
My agenda is moderate and centrist. You're so far right that Genghist Khan looks liberal to you. 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 Some email truths for Hillary Clinton Mar 14 drice 1
News Multiple Hess Gas Stations Hit By Skimmers (Apr '14) Mar 3 Choppa 15
News Obama taps Clancy to lead the Secret Service Feb '15 Le Jimbo 1
News Drone maker says it's 'highly unlikely' White H... Feb '15 Eleanor 2
News Shots fired near Vice President Biden's Delawar... Jan '15 Gary 57
things to consider when buying a new home in sy... Jan '15 primebuildingbrokers 1
News Secret Service Panel: Build Bigger Fence Around... Dec '14 Sunshine 2
More from around the web