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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8860 Oct 10, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
Really...?...did YOU really just say this after posting the fact that you couldn't read or quote what I actually said and twisted it for your own response...?
"I recommend you try listening to what I actually say for a change."
ROTFLMAO...or what...?
Priceless!!!!
Seriously, start over. You're lost in the weeds.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8861 Oct 10, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>People like you make me fear for the future of freedom in the great nation. My beliefs are not paranoid but rather based in fact and history. My description of you and the threats I perceive in the path you endorse are accurate and supported by years of observation. You can delude yourself if you want but I, and many others, are not deceived at all. It's been said that America can only be destroyed from within.........people like you who would sacrifice liberty and freedom for an imaginary benefit represent that destruction. I don't "imagine" that you and people like you are my enemies......you declared yourselves my enemy when you started attempting to restrict and abrogate my individual rights and freedoms even though I have committed no crime. If you were attacking the individuals who create the violence specifically without infringing on the rights of every law abiding citizen I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you. When you attempt to punish me for acts I had nothing to do with......prepare for a fight.
Nobody is restricting your rights. All this bluster is nothing but paranoia. I know you genuinely believe it, but it's based on falsehoods and fearmongering.

You've been duped, Squash. You have an extremist ideology that isn't based on facts or reality. It's based on fear and paranoia. And no matter how STRONGLY you believe it and no matter how utterly convinced you are that it's all true and no matter how many times you repeat it - it's simply not true.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8862 Oct 10, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank goodness we don't live in a Democracy huh...?
"Reactionary extremists usually do."
So now you are calling women..."Reactionary extremists"...you are calling Blacks..."Reactionary extremists"...you are calling gays..."Reactionary extremists"...you are calling Catholics or any other religion..."Reactionary extremists"....etc...etc. ..etc...
Everyone but you...is a "Reactionary extremists".
You're jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by my statements again. These are your words, not mine.

This is your pattern. You take my words, distort the meaning, attribute the distortion to me, then call me a liar.

I guess when the objective facts and the truth isn't' on your side, that's the only way you can continue in the debate. It's just sad that you don't realize how much like a pathetic loser it makes you look.

LOL!
Tray

Ecru, MS

#8863 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No we don't. The ONLY regulation of cars or ANY vehicle is for use on government roads. ANYONE can own a car even drunks and felons. ANYONE can operate a car in any way they they want EXCEPT government roads. Come to the dunes in Baja and you will see many HOMEBUILT vehicles under NO regulation at all, and most areas are government owned but as long as you stay off government roads there is no issue. EVEN the regulation on roads of cars is for the safety of the operator (which I stated before I'm all for better made guns) but no law regulates the use of the car's ability to break those laws. Cars are not limited to speed or ability to kill at the owners whim or be used as a weapon. There is no background check or limitation prior to purchasing a car. Your claim was cars are not used to commit crimes yet that was proven to be a lie so why do you not scream "ban cars"? Be truthful, you only want things banned that you don't like or don't use.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8864 Oct 10, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> No we don't. The ONLY regulation of cars or ANY vehicle is for use on government roads. ANYONE can own a car even drunks and felons. ANYONE can operate a car in any way they they want EXCEPT government roads. Come to the dunes in Baja and you will see many HOMEBUILT vehicles under NO regulation at all, and most areas are government owned but as long as you stay off government roads there is no issue. EVEN the regulation on roads of cars is for the safety of the operator (which I stated before I'm all for better made guns) but no law regulates the use of the car's ability to break those laws. Cars are not limited to speed or ability to kill at the owners whim or be used as a weapon. There is no background check or limitation prior to purchasing a car. Your claim was cars are not used to commit crimes yet that was proven to be a lie so why do you not scream "ban cars"? Be truthful, you only want things banned that you don't like or don't use.
Fine. You can own any gun you like as long as you don't take it off your property.

Satisfied?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8865 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Except the majority isn't denying anybody their 2nd Amendment rights.
Really? Are you that pathetically blind? Gun control measures are aimed at one thing and one thing only; depriving some (or all) American citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. Because you and your fellow anti-gun advocates are too lazy to go after those who deserve to be deprived, you want to deprive everyone. Every gun control measure ever imagined was meant to deprive somebody of 2nd amendment rights. Plain and pimple. To deny that is pure lunacy born of willful blindness.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8866 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inability to comprehend English does not make me a liar.
Your words, in English;

"I'm crystal clear on my agenda."

"...even I don't know my true agenda..."

One of your statements above, in English, is a lie...YOU are a liar...whether you admit it or not.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8867 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
When you've been reduced to arguing about semantics, your argument is clearly lost.
Take a breath and start over. Try to be coherent this time.
LOL!
ROTFLMAO..."semantics "...caught you lying again.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8868 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, start over. You're lost in the weeds.
That's a funny response when you're taking a pounding...lol

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8869 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is restricting your rights. All this bluster is nothing but paranoia. I know you genuinely believe it, but it's based on falsehoods and fearmongering.
You've been duped, Squash. You have an extremist ideology that isn't based on facts or reality. It's based on fear and paranoia. And no matter how STRONGLY you believe it and no matter how utterly convinced you are that it's all true and no matter how many times you repeat it - it's simply not true.
BS! Paranoia indicates an unfounded fear or apprehension. There is absolutely nothing unfounded about the apprehension I feel. The anti-gun lobby has a well founded history that completely belies your comment. So this is how you debate? Declare the legitimate concerns of those who oppose your agenda "paranoia" and disregard them? That's dot a debate Danny Boy. That's jut you attempting to declare yourself right in spite of all the facts and evidence. It ain't workin'.......

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8870 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said perjury and false reports to cops aren't crimes. Why are you lying?
I never said murder wasn't against the law. Why are you lying?
I never said child neglect isn't against the law. Why are you lying?
I never said insider trading or cheating on taxes aren't against the law. Why are you lying?
I never said violence and discrimination against minorities aren't against the law. Why are you lying?
You've just told 5 lies. Good thing lying isn't against the law or you'd be in deep shit.
LOL!
I never said that you did say they were not illegal. Why are YOU lying???

Your post..."No, you claimed that the moral issues I identified COULD LEAD to behavior that is against the law, not that those things themselves are against the law.

Because they aren't." (YOUR DENIAL)

Then you tried to blow it off by deflecting away saying that I said something along the lines of "based on", blah blah blah.

I gave you five VERY SPECIFIC examples of where the moral code HAS been codified into law, where you said it hasn't.

The only LIAR here is YOU!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8871 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You're jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by my statements again. These are your words, not mine.
This is your pattern. You take my words, distort the meaning, attribute the distortion to me, then call me a liar.
I guess when the objective facts and the truth isn't' on your side, that's the only way you can continue in the debate. It's just sad that you don't realize how much like a pathetic loser it makes you look.
LOL!
"The term is "majority rule" and I'm not surprised you have disdain for it. Reactionary extremists usually do."

YOUR words...NOT mine.

All of those I named...women, Blacks, gays, different religons...have ALL had to fight against "majority rule"...you think they had "disdain" against those that were denying them their rights...?

They fought againt "majority rule" and have won because we don't live under "majority rule". We live in a Democratic Republic that has has a Constitution that protects the rights of the minority againt the infringments of "majority rule".

AND...in your words above...they would be "Reactionary extremists"...and I would be proud to stand with any one or all of them against the likes of YOU that apparently supports "majority rule".

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8872 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine. You can own any gun you like as long as you don't take it off your property.
Satisfied?
Individual rights that belong to the people do not end at the doorstep...the property line...the city line...the county line...or the State line.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8873 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't. I have suggested moderate, centrist ideas to reduce gun violence that are supported by the majority of American citizens.
Which in this country have NEVER proven to reduce anything. Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Have they reduce the crime in those cities??? Not by a long shot. You are stumping for gun control alws that you are hoping AMY reduce crime without any proof whatsoever that it actually will.
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
When your agenda is right in the center of public opinion, you are (or in this case, I am) by definition a centrist.
But that's the thing...you are NOT in the center of public opinion. No matter how you want to believe it.
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>But from way out there on the righting extremist fringe, you simply don't have the perspective to make an accurate assessment of where the center is. You are light years away from it - you can't even see it from out there.
If being a constitutional conservative (you know, by NOT trying to add words to the Constitution which are NOT there) makes me a "rightwing extremist" in your book, then that is a badge I will wear with PRIDE!
Tray

Ecru, MS

#8874 Oct 10, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
suggest you read your own link instead...I know you must have a major reading disability:(types of weapon is limited)
(f) None of the Courtís precedents forecloses the Courtís interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47Ė54.[175][176]
and then we have:
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.
Anything else you care to babble about mctard?
That is a lie. MANY laws have been upheld by one court just to be deemed UNLAWFUL by another court. Just because a law passes and is upheld does not make it legal. Slavery was legal and upheld in courts but it was still a violation of rights thus an infrinement. The Second Amendment has never been before SCOTUS to ask if it is unlimited therefore never ruled on. A personal opinion of a justice is not a ruling. Everything is legal until a law makes it illegal and ALL laws are subject to removal, but that has nothing to do with rights which are not removable, just infringable.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8876 Oct 10, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
and what the hell do you parrot, armedtard?..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BJ4bqOJv16YXX
Freedom, liberty, and the US Constitution (how it was written).

The entire reason the Constitution has survived for as long as it has is because it is NOT allowed to be influenced by the political whims of the day. That is also the reason it was made extremely difficult to amend. If you want to amend the USC, then go out and get the required votes and state approvals that are required. But be prepared to be confronted by those like me AT EVERY TURN, and we won't be wanting to play patty-cake about our position. Good luck in your endeavor.
Tray

Ecru, MS

#8877 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine. You can own any gun you like as long as you don't take it off your property.
Satisfied?
Still missing it aren't you. I can't take a gun on someones property that don't allow it. I can however on public property as I am part owner. I also can't take a car on a persons property that don't allow cars. Self defense however is a right driving cars is not. I still prove you are a liar.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8879 Oct 10, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I'm wide awake and right. Laugh all you like Danny Boy, the jokes' on you.
I know that, being a leftist liberal and all, you don't want to admit that decades of your "feel good" policies have populated our streets with repeat violent offenders and the mentally unstable (not to mention all of the illegal alien criminals you liberals love so much) who should all be in institutions but complete denial isn't going to solve that problem. You'd rather focus on restricting and abrogating my rights and freedoms even though I've committed no crime. You're the one dreaming if you think that's going to happen without a fight. I'm willing to fight and die for the constitution as it was written and intended. I've laid my life on the line for it before and I have no problem with doing it again but I wouldn't waste the time it would take to spit on your revisionist version.
EXCELLENT !!!
Tray

Ecru, MS

#8883 Oct 10, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
that's your personal opinion.... and what your rights are determined by the courts & legislatures (federal and state), not by some neanderthals trained in constitutional law at Densa college....
scenarios have changed from 200 years ago...hillbilly jack-0ffs are not the militia and "arms" have changed since muskets were the most powerful "armament"...to deny that is pure lunacy born of willful blindness.
Yes the musket was the most powerful "armament" at the time and the founding fathers thought EVERYONE should be able to own the "most powerful armament" available. Their idea was a country by the people for the people, not by the government for the government. The protection of the people and their rights was more important than the protection of the government.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8884 Oct 10, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The term is "majority rule" and I'm not surprised you have disdain for it. Reactionary extremists usually do.
In a land of freedom and liberty....you know, what this country was founded upon.....the freedom and rights of the few are not subject to the whims of the many without due process. A true democracy is nothing more than mob/majority rule. That is why we have a CONSITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

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 Russian hacker faces decades in prison Apr 21 USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr 19 alina 7
News Oklahoma state senator plans to resign followin... Mar '17 Dakoter 44
News Man who drove suspicious car near White House i... Mar '17 RustyS 1
News Secret Service laptop containing Trump Tower ev... Mar '17 Cordwainer Trout 7
News White House intruder was on grounds for 15 minu... Mar '17 Texxy 1
News Poop scooper gets probation for using fake IDs,... Mar '17 CodeTalker 3
More from around the web