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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12271 Mar 5, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps when you become honest in your "Chambersburg forum" I'll consider it.
I'm always honest. If you have some evidence otherwise, show me. Otherwise you're just making things up.

Again.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12272 Mar 5, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"And nobody disagrees with that Franklin quote. Nobody."
Oh poppycock Danny. That very quote has been thoroughly debated right here on this site in several forums. There are plenty of people who disagree with what Ben said.
<quoted text>
poof !
So you can't show me anyone?

That's what I thought.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12273 Mar 5, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN Danny, >YOU< asked for proof that "NO ONE disagrees with" what ole Benjamin said.
I said yes they do and there is discussions on this SITE (NOTChambersburg forum) which contain the proof.
<quoted text>
I just did Dan.
No, you didn't.

You never have.

You CLAIM it exists among 103 THOUSAND posts in the guns forum, but there's not a reason in the world that I should believe that.

If it exists, you would have shown me. But you haven't, have you?

I wonder why? LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12274 Mar 5, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN Danny, >YOU< asked for proof that "NO ONE disagrees with" what ole Benjamin said.
I said yes they do and there is discussions on this SITE (NOTChambersburg forum) which contain the proof.
<quoted text>
I just did Dan.
Hey, I can prove that I can read minds. There's book in the Library of Congress that says so.

BAM! Proven!

LMAO!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#12278 Mar 5, 2014
Why can't liberals think for themselves?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12279 Mar 5, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Ron Paul
Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Three out of four: draft dodgers.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12280 Mar 5, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps when you become honest in your "Chambersburg forum" I'll consider it.
Thanks for admitting you aren't honest.

Even though it was established a very long time ago.
FormerParatroope r

Kansas City, MO

#12281 Mar 5, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of other sources for that information. But if you want to see the original research, you can find it here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm...
BTW - "equally biased site?" Please. LOL!
Yes, equally biased. Both present the side of the debate that benefits their beliefs.

I read thru your link, interesting, but does not support a definitive conclusion. But gives insight to the things that were debated to have the Constitution. I will actually take time to re read the pdf, as I have read the debate before and didn't make the same conclusion the author of yours did.

Do you think that the Constitution was the first step in ending slavery on this Continent?
FormerParatroope r

Kansas City, MO

#12282 Mar 5, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Speaking with syndicated radio host Thom Hartman on Sunday, National Urban Forum director Lawrence Jones delightedly told a second-hand story about of a member of his group lobbying a congresswoman, who reportedly told the NUF member, "You want to shoot me, don’t you."
Jones said he didn't think this man actually wanted to shoot the congresswoman, but added, "that's probably a healthy fear for them to have."
"You know, I'm kind of glad that's in the back of their minds," he said. "Hopefully they'll behave."
----------
Seriously, right-wingers -- if you denounce this, I'm right there with you. The fact that the head of a left-leaning civil rights group would joke about this sort of thing is outrageous.
I did a quick search for Lawrence Jones and NUF. Then for Thom Hartmanns show links. I looked for last Sundays show script. Thoms show is Mon thru Fri. So I looked up Thom and Lawrence together, nothing. No National Urban Forum either, except in Uganda.

Where did your information come from? I wanted to see the context of this conversation, then to see when and where it happened and who was involved.
FormerParatroope r

Kansas City, MO

#12283 Mar 5, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It always makes me laugh how all it took for the rightwing in this country to become outraged by the Patriot Act was the election of a Democratic President. Welcome to the fight! LOL!
Everything you mention was implemented by conservative politicians in response to security concerns. It's part of the pendulum swing toward sacrificing privacy for more security that happens in our democratic nation every time the nation fears for its safety.
And all of them can be and are being addressed through the democratic process. In a police state, that's impossible.
The term "police state" has an actual meaning. Using it to describe what's happening in this nation is a false use of that term. Your false usage does NOT negate reality, AVboy.
When the Patriot Act came about, I did stand in opposition. I was Active Duty at the time.
If you do not believe what is happening in our Country is becoming a police state, what are you calling it?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#12284 Mar 6, 2014
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
When the Patriot Act came about, I did stand in opposition. I was Active Duty at the time.
If you do not believe what is happening in our Country is becoming a police state, what are you calling it?
I too was 100% against the Patriot Act from the very beginning. It is a knee-jerk reactionary garbage piece of legislation that proclaimed the terrorists complete victory to the entire world. The terrorists succeeded in doing EXACTLY what they set out to do..........they set in motion the mechanism by which the American way of life will be destroyed. We should have given them the same response we gave Japan in 1941.......at least we'd still be free.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12285 Mar 6, 2014
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, equally biased. Both present the side of the debate that benefits their beliefs.
I read thru your link, interesting, but does not support a definitive conclusion. But gives insight to the things that were debated to have the Constitution. I will actually take time to re read the pdf, as I have read the debate before and didn't make the same conclusion the author of yours did.
Do you think that the Constitution was the first step in ending slavery on this Continent?
The site you linked to is dishonest. The site I linked to has a political perspective, but is not dishonest. Big difference.

The 3/5 compromise emboldened and empowered the south, protected their privileges and property, and ultimately led to the Civil War - and as such was a pro-slavery document.

That said, the document is eminently practical and, I believe, genius. So once the nation acknowledged that African Americans are fully equal and human, the Constitution provides a template to end slavery and grant full civil rights to all minorities. But ending slavery came from outside the Constitution with appeals to the language of the Constitution that did not originally apply to slaves.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12286 Mar 6, 2014
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
I did a quick search for Lawrence Jones and NUF. Then for Thom Hartmanns show links. I looked for last Sundays show script. Thoms show is Mon thru Fri. So I looked up Thom and Lawrence together, nothing. No National Urban Forum either, except in Uganda.
Where did your information come from? I wanted to see the context of this conversation, then to see when and where it happened and who was involved.
Nope, you are correct. I changed the names to see what rightwingers would say. Here's the original.

----------

Speaking with Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham on Sunday, Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt delightedly told a second-hand story about of a member of his group lobbying a congresswoman, who reportedly told the GOA member, "You want to shoot me, don't you."

Pratt said he didn't think this man actually wanted to shoot the congresswoman, but added, "that's probably a healthy fear for them to have."

"You know, I'm kind of glad that's in the back of their minds," he said. "Hopefully they'll behave."

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12287 Mar 6, 2014
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
When the Patriot Act came about, I did stand in opposition. I was Active Duty at the time.
If you do not believe what is happening in our Country is becoming a police state, what are you calling it?
So you also believe the country is becoming a police state. I'm actually a little surprised by that.

Here's what I would call it - a mature democracy being manipulated and perverted by a minority party to advance their minority agenda at any cost.

The GOP's willingness to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the US for political ends, to misuse minority protections in the Senate to undermine effective governance, and to hijack the electoral process through gerrymandering, secret spending, and voter suppression to advance an agenda that can't win a popular vote has handicapped our democracy. And, unfortunately, the Democrats lack the spine to aggressively confront any of it.

We are not a police state or anything close to it. There are many things wrong and dysfunctional with Washington, but suppression of freedom and dissent through threat of police or military force to protect totalitarian government control is not one of them.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12288 Mar 6, 2014
Squach wrote:
We should have given them the same response we gave Japan in 1941.......at least we'd still be free.
Declaring war? We did that. How did that work out?

And we ARE free.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12289 Mar 6, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Your pathetic copy-catting is hilarious. Why can't conservatives think for themselves?
Squach wrote:
Why can't liberals think for themselves?
ROFLMAO!

Your unintentional irony is HILARIOUS! You can't even conceive of a post for yourself! LMAO!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#12290 Mar 6, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever figure out how to address the Patriot Act through the democratic process? Or do you still think armed revolution is the only solution?
LOL!
I never said armed revolution is the only solution. Are you related to Barefoot, because she makes claims of things I never said ALL THE TIME, too.

There are four boxes when dealing with the govt, and in this order:

1. Soap box
2. Ballot box
3. Jury box
4. Cartridge box

We are not at the last one yet (but we are getting closer).

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12291 Mar 6, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said armed revolution is the only solution. Are you related to Barefoot, because she makes claims of things I never said ALL THE TIME, too.
There are four boxes when dealing with the govt, and in this order:
1. Soap box
2. Ballot box
3. Jury box
4. Cartridge box
We are not at the last one yet (but we are getting closer).
No, you didn't come right out and say it. But it is a reason inference from what you did say.

If you honestly believe we are close to the point where you and others will have to take up weapons against the democratically elected government of the United States, you are a genuine threat to this nation.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12292 Mar 6, 2014
...reasonable inference...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#12293 Mar 6, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you didn't come right out and say it. But it is a reason inference from what you did say.
If you honestly believe we are close to the point where you and others will have to take up weapons against the democratically elected government of the United States, you are a genuine threat to this nation.
LMAO!

I never said we are close......I said we are getting closer. BIG difference. And I am no threat whatsoever to "the nation". I, and several million other like-minded individuals, ARE a threat to our elected officials if they wish to keep shoving their socialist agenda down our throats instead of upholding their oath of office to protect and preserve our Constitution. Let them beware.

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 man convicted of hacking into US busine... Fri Mizike67 5
News Russian man faces US trial in lucrative hacking... Aug 14 Nu Wor Order 4
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
More from around the web