Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion

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.

Comments
9,021 - 9,040 of 11,003 Comments Last updated Apr 3, 2014

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10107
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

You can't regulate gun sales between private individuals without creating a national registry of all firearms, which is specifically illegal. It's illegal because a national registry is potentially the first step of any future movement by the government to disarms all Americans. If that day ever comes then Americans will no longer be free and all those who have fought and died to protect our rights will have died for nothing.

Is that what you want?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10108
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
the source of your constitutional law degree, year and college?
Densa college is not accredited....
Bumped your head again, didn't ya? My level of education and the degrees I posses are none of your business. Suffice it to say that anyone with a third grade education is capable of making a complete fool of you. Try again.....

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10109
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Liberals and those who support more gun control fail to see the fact that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the government doesn't infringe on any of our rights.

I know you think that armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the Federal government so there's no need for armed militias, but you haven't put much thought into what would actually happen if a large segment of our nation's citizens took up arms against the government. All you see in your simple minds is a few people firing shotguns at military tanks while f-14 fighter jets drop bombs on them. Thats not how it would happen.

First, it would almost be impossible for the military to use any large weapons to defend itself against armed citizens on US soil because of their inability to distinguish militia from other citizens. Look at what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military could never "win" the wars over there because they couldn't identify their enemy.

But the biggest advantage an armed militia would have over the government is the fact that as soon as the government decided to use weapons against American citizens they will have lost the war already. If they enact policy that leads to a large number of Americans to take up arms against them it would turn our entire country upside down, not to mention our economy. The government would have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10110
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
~stomp stomp stomp~
MOMMY! tell barefoot2626 the list of states with the highest homicide rates is IRRELEVANT when I am talking about homicide rates! Especially since they are all states with poor gun co0ntrol regulations!
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! His numbers are always better than mine!
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

"IRRELEVANT" indeed.

As for the rest of your errant spewings:

FBI: Chicago passes New York as murder capital of U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/w...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10111
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Banned wrote:
Liberals and those who support more gun control fail to see the fact that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the government doesn't infringe on any of our rights.
I know you think that armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the Federal government so there's no need for armed militias, but you haven't put much thought into what would actually happen if a large segment of our nation's citizens took up arms against the government. All you see in your simple minds is a few people firing shotguns at military tanks while f-14 fighter jets drop bombs on them. Thats not how it would happen.
First, it would almost be impossible for the military to use any large weapons to defend itself against armed citizens on US soil because of their inability to distinguish militia from other citizens. Look at what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military could never "win" the wars over there because they couldn't identify their enemy.
But the biggest advantage an armed militia would have over the government is the fact that as soon as the government decided to use weapons against American citizens they will have lost the war already. If they enact policy that leads to a large number of Americans to take up arms against them it would turn our entire country upside down, not to mention our economy. The government would have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Not to mention that the military would in all probability turn their weapons on the traitors in [supposed]'power'. As well as on their fellow soldiers that were following illegal orders.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10112
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA opposes all of them, including laws that 90 percent of Americans support.
It is interested in keeping itself preserved, to always have a bogeyman for which that can collect money from saps which pays its board millions of dollars in salaries.
SAPS.
Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

Black conservative leaders discuss the reason the NRA was founded and how gun control is an effort to control people.

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) hosted a group of prominent figures from the African American community at 9:45A.M. on Friday, February 22nd at the National Press Club to speak out against gun control legislation currently being considered on Capitol Hill.

CURE is the largest black conservative think tank in the nation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

CURE organized the news conference in response to concerns shared by black conservatives that the Senate proposed laws will restrict their ability to defend themselves, their property and their families. They are also concerned that the proposed gun control legislation puts too much power in the hands of politicians.

"I believe that it is our duty to stand together and challenge the proposals currently on the table in the Senate, which invoke painful memories of Jim Crow laws and black codes," said CURE president and founder, Star Parker. "Black history is rife with government demands for background checks in order to qualify for constitutional rights. All Americans should be concerned."

Star Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist and other noted thought leaders, authors and speakers will make the case against the type of gun control measures President Obama and his liberal allies are proposing. While the group believes that Sandy Hook was a national tragedy, they oppose its use as an opportunity to advance government control and strip any American citizens of their constitutional rights. In the middle of Black History Month, CURE is calling for a serious national dialogue about the impact of gun control on the black community.

"We want to inform United States senators that we will be notifying urban pastors, business leaders and other black voters of their legislators' position on the Second Amendment—especially blue senators in red states currently up for re-election." The news conference is to rally behind the tradition of former slave and great American orator Frederick Douglass who said, "A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."


Do you ever tire of being shown just how pathetically wrong you REALLY are?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10113
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It hasn't escaped Justice Scalia or the Supreme Court whose quote has been posted here many dozens of times: that like all amendments, the can be restrictions on the Send Amendment.
MEANINGLESS:

United States Constitution, 2nd Article of Amendment, "RESTRICTIVE" clause:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

The "Supreme Law of the Land" TRUMPS 'scalia' and the rest of the feces-flinging monkeys in black robes.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10114
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that's why gun gnutters like to start in the middle of it?
Not quite, treasonous troll:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.]

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution....

...Amendment II

DECLARATORY clause;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

RESTRICTIVE clause;

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

It is in FACT >you< and your fellow treasonous trolls that dismiss the REAL INTENDED meaning of the amendment.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10115
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA opposes all of them, including laws that 90 percent of Americans support.
It is interested in keeping itself preserved, to always have a bogeyman for which that can collect money from saps which pays its board millions of dollars in salaries.
SAPS.
"that 90 percent of Americans support."

HARDLY:

Americans undergo stunning gun control shift, new poll finds
Monday, October 28, 2013

The call for stricter gun control has waned since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting at the end of 2012, a Gallup poll released Friday found.

In the days following the school shooting, which killed 20 children and six staff members, 58 percent of those polled wanted stricter gun control. Now, almost a year after the December shooting, that number has dropped to 49 percent.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

The drop also means the country now is split nearly evenly on whether gun control laws need to be stricter. On the other side of the 49 percent who want stricter laws, 50 percent want laws to either be less strict or kept the same.

The poll also found that 74 percent of respondents are opposed to a law that would ban handguns, except for use by police and other law enforcement. Only about a quarter think the use of handguns should be limited only to authorized personnel.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/...

No matter how many times you spew forth that treasonous lie. It will NEVER make it a reality. You and your handlers have LOST, and will continue to lose.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10116
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it's hilarious that MORONS are unable to understand why a state that has 39 million people in it would be at the top of a list when compared to a state with less than a million people.
How stupid could one be?
Put it tis way... so stupid that 2ndAmRight has to change his aliases on frequent occasions because of the stupidity he as accumulated.
Inconvenient facts the gun control lobby cannot answer

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 7, 2013

Despite the onslaught of media propaganda in support of the Obama administration’s anti-second amendment agenda in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the statistics clearly illustrate that gun control does not reduce violent crime and in fact has the opposite effect.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

The graph below from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have DECREASED....
http://www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more...

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011 in relation to Gun Control Laws/NICS Background checks

Sources: Population Figures; Disaster Center:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.h...

NICS Figures; FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

(Important note: The number of background checks does not equate to the number of firearms sold. As multiple guns; both Long Guns, and Hand Guns, can be purchased during a NICS background check).

The statistics from the chart were gathered from the Disaster Center referenced above. To which were added the last two columns on the right. Which contain information concerning U.S. gun law enactment periods. As well as crime rate variances, and finally; N.I.C.S.,(National Instant Criminal Background Check), numbers,

As it is plain to see, crime rates started a dramatic rise after the 1968 Gun Control Act. During the years 1981-84 crime rates either leveled out or dropped. From 1985-91 the overall crime rate again rose sharply. During the year 1992 the crime rates again leveled. While in 1993 most crime rates had fallen. Which fails to explain the justification for the Unconstitutional “Brady Bill”.

The 'Gun Control' laws that have been unconstitutionally passed have also had an effect on Firearm sales in the United States. According to National Shooting Sports Foundation,(NSSF), and FBI NICS records. Firearms sales have increased by 54.1% between 2002-2011*. Thus making the claim by John Lott in his book; “More Guns, Less Crime”, a statistical FACT.

'Gun Control laws' also seem to be providing an impetus for increased firearms sales. Which is hardly what the 'gun control' crowd desired, I'm sure. That is of course, unless they are stock holders in firearms related businesses....
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/04/u...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10119
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Inconvenient facts the gun control lobby cannot answer
You mean like when we tell you over and over and over the states that have the weakest gun control laws, you compare the state that has 39 million people to the state that has less than 600,000 people in it?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10120
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

2ndAmRight wrote:
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007.
Gun fatalities continue to climb.

That is why you compare apples to oranges, you m/f c/s lying fraud.

Fraud- meaning you need to rotate your aliases, Shug.

And the FBI certain does not conclude- by any measure- that drops in violent crime have anything to do with gun ownership because- and here is the key- there is absolutely no connection.

Here's a picture for you, Fraud.

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.j...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10121
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

2ndAmRight wrote:
gun control does not reduce violent crime and in fact has the opposite effect.
Prove it.

You m/f c/s liar.

And Fraud.

Prove it.

Oh right... I forgot.

You get to demand people prove what they say, and you never ever prove a thing you post.

Putting aside you of course have nothing original to post.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10122
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"that 90 percent of Americans support."
HARDLY:
Americans undergo stunning gun control shift, new poll finds.
Already REFUTED the first two times you posted it, FRAUD.

The poll doesn't even ask about universal background checks.

Wipe your lips, Freddy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10123
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

2ndAmRight wrote:
Thus making the claim by John Lott in his book; “More Guns, Less Crime”,
There is no bigger liar on the planet than John Lott, and statisticians find his figures hilarious.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10124
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like when we tell you over and over and over the states that have the weakest gun control laws, you compare the state that has 39 million people to the state that has less than 600,000 people in it?
Then explain why Washington, D.C., which has some of the most stringent 'gun control' laws in the nation. Also has one of the highest murder rates? And then there's N.Y.C. and Chicago, BOTH with extremely stringent 'gun control' laws:

FBI: Chicago passes New York as murder capital of U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/w...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10125
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no bigger liar on the planet than John Lott, and statisticians find his figures hilarious.
Funny how that you can find NOTHING which disputes his ACCURATE research though, eh sycophant? WHY IS THAT?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10126
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already REFUTED the first two times you posted it, FRAUD.
The poll doesn't even ask about universal background checks.
Wipe your lips, Freddy.
Americans undergo stunning gun control shift, new poll finds
Monday, October 28, 2013

The call for stricter gun control has waned since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting at the end of 2012, a Gallup poll released Friday found.

In the days following the school shooting, which killed 20 children and six staff members, 58 percent of those polled wanted stricter gun control. Now, almost a year after the December shooting, that number has dropped to 49 percent.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

The drop also means the country now is split nearly evenly on whether gun control laws need to be stricter. On the other side of the 49 percent who want stricter laws, 50 percent want laws to either be less strict or kept the same.

The poll also found that 74 percent of respondents are opposed to a law that would ban handguns, except for use by police and other law enforcement. Only about a quarter think the use of handguns should be limited only to authorized personnel.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10127
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
You m/f c/s liar.
And Fraud.
Prove it.
Oh right... I forgot.
You get to demand people prove what they say, and you never ever prove a thing you post.
Putting aside you of course have nothing original to post.
Harvard study shows gun control doesn't save lives

August 28, 2013

In the spring of 2007, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy released a study of the relative effects of stringent gun laws. They found that a country like Luxenbourg, which bans all guns has a murder rate that is 9 times higher than Germany, where there are 30,000 guns per 100,000 people. They also cited a study by the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and it failed to find one gun control initiative that worked.

In fact, in many cases it found that violence is very often lower, where guns are more readily available....
http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-study...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10128
Nov 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun fatalities continue to climb.
That is why you compare apples to oranges, you m/f c/s lying fraud.
Fraud- meaning you need to rotate your aliases, Shug.
And the FBI certain does not conclude- by any measure- that drops in violent crime have anything to do with gun ownership because- and here is the key- there is absolutely no connection.
Here's a picture for you, Fraud.
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.j...
Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Says
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/0...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••