Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10989 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.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#11750 Feb 26, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You can't be serious.
I deferred to others BECAUSE there was insufficient data in your little scenario ... as you yourself admitted when you said you'd also have to seek more information to make a decision.
IOW - I answered the same as you would have, yet you attack me for giving the only reasonable answer possible.
It's almost like you goal is just to attack me, and it doesn't matter what I do you'll find an excuse to do so.
Come back when you've grown up and can hold a rational debate based on logic instead of emotionalism.
My goal is to get you to admit that summaries of data are very often off base when one sees only a snippet of the whole. You repeatedly stated that you will defer to others and trust them because it is they who are the "experts" on the matter. My goal is to get you to stop your attempts at destroying the very fabric which this country was built from. My recent approach is a page from your own book of acts ... attack, attack, attack, attack and then attack again.
Don't like it huh Dan.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11752 Feb 26, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you always address yourself while pretending to be addressing others, cowardly traitor?
Interesting how that I can post the ACTUAL WORDS that were written by the men instrumental in forming our nation. While >you< on the other hand CANNOT. WHY IS THAT, danny-BOY?
LOL!

Thanks for proving my point.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11753 Feb 26, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
My goal is to get you to admit that summaries of data are very often off base when one sees only a snippet of the whole. You repeatedly stated that you will defer to others and trust them because it is they who are the "experts" on the matter. My goal is to get you to stop your attempts at destroying the very fabric which this country was built from. My recent approach is a page from your own book of acts ... attack, attack, attack, attack and then attack again.
Don't like it huh Dan.
LMAO! Giving fair consideration to legitimate, empirically-based research does nothing to "destroy the very fabric which this country was built from."

This sort of hysterical hyperbole is what people resort to when their argument has been destroyed. At this point you're just broadcasting that you know you've lost the argument. LOL!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11755 Feb 26, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! Giving fair consideration to legitimate, empirically-based research does nothing to "destroy the very fabric which this country was built from."
This sort of hysterical hyperbole is what people resort to when their argument has been destroyed. At this point you're just broadcasting that you know you've lost the argument. LOL!
Really, cowardly traitor?

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

ANYTHING that attempts to undermine that right is treason.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#11756 Feb 26, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! Giving fair consideration to legitimate, empirically-based research does nothing to "destroy the very fabric which this country was built from."
This sort of hysterical hyperbole is what people resort to when their argument has been destroyed. At this point you're just broadcasting that you know you've lost the argument. LOL!
WHERE is this " legitimate, empirically-based research"??????????

Asking you to provide what you claim exists (which you swallow whole with out the actual empirical proof) is " hysterical hyperbole " ?
If you say so Dan.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11757 Feb 26, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
WHERE is this " legitimate, empirically-based research"??????????
Asking you to provide what you claim exists (which you swallow whole with out the actual empirical proof) is " hysterical hyperbole " ?
If you say so Dan.
Ummm, no. Accusing me of "attempts at destroying the very fabric which this country was built from" is hysterical hyperbole.

Did you see it this time? It was in quotes ... just like in the post you responded to. That's twice today you've missed what I've plainly said.

For someone who's so hot to see the original data, you're not demonstrating very strong reading comprehension skills. It's hard for me to believe you'd even have the ability to accurately interpret the original data if you ever bothered to look at it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11758 Feb 26, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, cowardly traitor?
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
ANYTHING that attempts to undermine that right is treason.
Like I said - anyone who believes that anyone and everyone should be permitted to buy and own any weapon they want and as much ammo as they want without any oversight or regulation simply isn't capable of accurately interpreting reality, much less accurately comprehend the words and meaning of the US Constitution.

You should stick to your intellectual depth, Dave.
Here's something more your speed: http://www.amazon.com/Dr.-Seuss/e/B000AP8MY6/...

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11762 Feb 26, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Really simpleton?
"And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise...."--Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
How is it that you are NOT ashamed of being a cowardly and treasonous bold-faced liar? Of being PROVEN to be a cowardly LIAR over and over again here on this thread?
I know you can cut and paste and childishly call people names. As far as I can tell, those are the only two tools in your toolbox.

It's rational, logical thinking and reasoning that I said aren't part of your skill set (as well as reading comprehension evidently).

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11767 Feb 26, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
...
LMAO!

Sorry, but your assessment is meaningless. Someone who believes that anyone and everyone should be able to buy any weapon and any amount of ammunition they want at any time with zero oversight or regulation simply doesn't have the capacity to accurately assess what reality is.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11770 Feb 26, 2014
fullofit wrote:
<quoted text>
says our village id-iot...
Yeah, that's you alright.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#11772 Feb 26, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I deferred to others BECAUSE there was insufficient data in your little scenario ...
...
OK, so when the ones you defer to say the red car is the race leader and inquire if you are blind because everyone can clearly see the red car is in front of the blue car ... then what Dan?
FormerParatroope r

Topeka, KS

#11775 Feb 26, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think an innocent person shooting a cop breaking into the wrong house should be held criminally liable. But I don't think making that legal is the best solution to the problem. Or even a very good solution.
When you set up a situation that forces a false choice, I'm probably not going to confine myself to the scenario you set up in giving my answer. It's not a matter of discomfort. It's a matter of giving a full and accurate answer to the issue at hand without being artificially limited to the manufactured "yes/no" proposition.
What was the false choice? I described a situation that can happen. But glad to know your thought.

The proposed law does not allow someone to knowingly and intentionally kill a police officer.
The way you portray the proposed law is the falsity.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11778 Feb 26, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don't. Because if gun control actually worked
Four million denied gun sales says gun control work.

I guess seat belts don't work, eh, DongLiqueer, because people still die in traffic accidents.

PS: You forget you insist more guns means less crime and then we have California with far more crime than any other state.
it was obvious

Moorpark, CA

#11780 Feb 26, 2014
selling guns to mexican drug cartels means less crime

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11782 Feb 26, 2014
Julia wrote:
Was watching Investigation Discovery last night...true story
A woman and her husband in Nashville, Tn., had a karaoke gig on the side for extra money.
Tennesee always at the top of the firearm fatalities.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11784 Feb 26, 2014
Julia wrote:
Long story short...the stalker shot the woman's husband in the karaoke bar,.
Having a gun would not have saved him either.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11786 Feb 26, 2014
Julia wrote:
Long story short...the stalker shot the woman's husband
That would make it the killer's fault.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11787 Feb 26, 2014
Julia wrote:
If it was not illegal, the woman said she would have had the gun on her and her husband would not be dead....the killer would be..
Nonsense, he got shot six times, what do you think having a gun would have done for him?

PS: funny how gun gnutters blame an inanimate object for this murder: I say, blame the person who pulled the trigger.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11788 Feb 26, 2014
ANPOG wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course your favorite state —Illinois— has absolutely no murders at all, correct?
And of course your favorite state —Alaska— has absolutely no murders at all, correct?
ANPOG

UK

#11789 Feb 26, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Having a gun would not have saved him either.
Pray tell: JUST HOW could you have known that? Where you there?
Did you know the actor, and the victims?

Are you so very cocksure of your assertions that you may make them without providing ~any~ proof at all?

Why, if you say so, then it ~must~ be true, regardless. Right?

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 (Jan '16) Apr '16 Jaimie 6
More from around the web