Yeaaaaaa.... And the same people who think they can take on government forces if they have to have a "rebellion", are the same psychos who DO NOT need to be owning assault rifles.

Ed, these guys are just shooting themselves in the foot (literally and figuratively). The more they keep talking about uprisings and such, the higher the chance they will end up losing their rights to carry a concealed weapon.

That nut James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a firearms and tactical training company recently had his permit pulled after stating:

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it, you shouldn't put up with it, and I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do. Load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it, and get ready to fight.

"I'm not fU@*ing putting up with this, I am not letting my country be ruled by a dictator, I am not letting anybody take my guns," he said, his voice rising. "If this goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

Just let these nuts keep talking....

So who here is talking about a 'rebellion,' Ed? Just you and your buddy, as far as I can tell.

I believe Freudians-- for whatever their opinion is worth-- call that "projection." When it is done by media figures and politicians, it is called "demagoguery."

Karl, WTF are you talking about. Read the comment above me

"3.) The semi-automatic rifle is for protection against violations of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." "

That sounds like armed uprising to me. And its not the first person I've read make such similar comments.

The United States Government Has many nuclear weapons we have no intention of using, but because we have them our threat of nuclear attack is small.
If the citizens carry weapons equal to the military we run a smaller chance of the government becoming tyrannical do we not. It is not armed rebellion we seek but peace through strength

That may be the case, L. Madden, but perpetuating that mentality and not working towards active peace, is everything that is wrong with us as a society...

karlub - I happen to be a gun owner (not a NRA member though). I have no problem with people being allowed to own one semi-automatic weapon for protection. I also have no problem with people owning as many "long rifles" as they want as most are used for hunting and do not have large mags but there needs to be a limit on how many weapons one person or houshold really needs for "self defense" or legal hunting.

The two main things that need to happen ASAP are a NATIONAL gun registry and limits on the amount of ammo someone can purchase over a specific period of time. This way we can see who is "stock piling" guns and an investigation can be done if needed. Ammo limits and registration will also allow us to track who is stock piling ammo. There is no reason people need hundreds, in many cases thousands of rounds for "self-defense". The average 9mm holds anywhere between 12-16 rounds. If you happen to miss the boggie man you are so afraid of 16 times, then shame on you.

L Madden - The practice of arming everyone has not decreased crime or conflict in general. What it has done is transformed what use to be fist fights or maybe a stabing at worst in to murders by gun. I own a gun and have a consealed weapon permit but rarely carry it. I find people who do carry their guns every where tend to "look for trouble" and excuses to pull it or use it. Many people are basically just scared and the gun makes them feel tough. It's these fools that end up shooting a family member or neighbor either by accident or over some foolish argument.

I actually thought about getting a CCW, especially after moving to Phoenixville. But then I also decided, that is not the type of environment I want to live in, where I feel I have to carry a gun. People carry guns because other people think they have to carry guns. Which is BS. Just like in 'the hood', where people say they have to resort to crime because it's "hard on the streets". Yes, its hard on the streets because you got MF'ers running around saying it's "hard on the streets".

Its a self fulfilling vicious cycle and until we try to break it, violence will just keep happening...

@ Ed Roper...Ed, You call those who believe in fighting a tyrannical government "psychos". Those "psychos" founded this country, and their decendents have fought oppressive governments throughout American history.
What would you do in the event of your own government suddenly taking away your rights and freedoms?
Is it "psychotic" to think that the possibility exists that our own government could eliminate our rights? Remove term limits, abolish voting rights, tax your income to the point you have little of your own money left? And this very government controls the military and police. How would you defend against this?
While it is unlikely that these things would happen in America, you seem to think that they could never happen, and Americans have no need to take on an out-of-control government. Am I correct? you believe this could never happen?
You speak of working towards active peace, but the history of mankind shows that peace is achieved when there is a balance of power. In America, that balance is achieved through the Second Amendment, and in this case, responsible ownership of weapons that are capable of fighting against a tyrannical government.
So do you stand by your initial comment that those of us who understand how fragile freedom truly is, and are willing to sacrifice for that freedom, and defend it, are just "psychos"?

truthsayer - Not for nothing but your "psycho" rant did nothing but further prove Ed's point. Wack jobs that think they can fight the government with their stash of weapons are exactly the types who should not be allowed to have them. Our founding fathers started as a colony of England who wanted to break free of a king who lived on the other side of the Atlantic yet thought he had the right to rule. The 2nd amendment was put in place because there was a good chance England may return to try to take over again (which actually happened in 1812). At the current time America is under NO THREAT of invasion nor has our political system been in danger of being taken over by another nation. People like you nuts just hate that a black Democrat won TWO terms as President and therefore are scared to death of "minorities" taking over so your guns make you feel "safer".

Homer: Lisa, if I didn't have this gun, the king of England could walk right in here and start pushing you around.
[Homer starts pushing Lisa around]
Homer: D'you want that? Huh? Do ya?
Lisa: No...

[Should be 'representatives', of course. Alas, no edit function on this platform.]

You spend most of your time posting to social media sites during Council. I doubt you are paying close attention to what was being said. Let's face it you are lucky you are on Council. You were the lesser of all the other evils. I doubt you could win the election if you actually ran.

Realist, karlub is an example of why local government is so crappy. Not just in Phoenixville but in general. Think about the concept, it is an unpaid position. What kind of person wants or has the time to take on this type of commitment?

1) Someone looking for a career in politics and wants to use a Council or School Board position as a spring board. These types at least take a side and try to get something done to put on their political "resume".

2) People with limited intelligence/ability who want a position of authority but aren't competent enough to get that type of position through full time employment in the private or public sector. It is often far easier to get a few hundred straight ticket votes in an off year election than to get promoted at a real job where people actually know you.

3) People with a grudge and too much time on their hands who want the post strictly to get back at someone or some thing (most often found on school boards)

4) People who can or work for someone who can directly benefit from changing zoning or other local laws/rules (real estate developers come to mind)

5) People that actually care about the community and want to make a positive impact - very rare.

Where do you think larlub fits on this scale? Better question, who if any fit #5?

I pay plenty of attention, and my constituents thank me frequently for my social media updates as it helps them keep track of what is happening in the Borough. Doing it in real time ensures my communications are timely, concise, and relatively thorough.

In fact, one of the questions during my interview was "Do you think we do a good enough job communicating to the public." I said in that interview that greater use of social media would, perhaps, help this.

Also, I have a Republican on one side of me, and a Democrat on the other. Neither of them has expressed any concern that my communications to my constituents are in any way interfering with my duty as a Councilman. Former Council members of both parties also appreciate my updates.

As for the circumstances of my appointment...whatevs. I'm not running for the seat anyway. That's the key point. I can be frank, speak my mind, and communicate to the public without taking political considerations into account.

If this, to you, is a bug rather than a feature, I hope it inspires you to think a little harder about what THAT means.

Oh: One did not have to pay very close attention to the Mayor to come to the same conclusions I did, anyway. I have yet to talk to a Councilperson with an opinion that diverges radically from mine.

You must not talk to your fellow Council people I heard from at least 2 that they find it distracting. And thank you for not running for running when your appointed term is up.
I am one of your constituents and I know many neighbors who would not vote for you.

Ed, thanks for addressing my comments to you.
I don't believe I took your words out of context. I interpreted them just as they appear on the page. You, however, just clarified your own statement to say that you were referring to the person in a video. Not sure who that would be, as you made no reference to a video in your initial comment.
I wanted to know how you would defend against a government that took away your freedoms, and now know that you would not try. You state that it would be futile to fight against our own government and military, and so what? lie down and give up?
I would infer that you don't have anything in your life that you feel is worth defending, if it means you may lose the battle. That is sad to me. Life and freedom are all about sacrifice, and sometimes we have to sacrifice our lives for that in which we believe.
By the way, Ed...I was in law enforcement. Trained in various weapons and tactics. Certainly not to the level a specialist in the military would have been, but I don't "laugh" at the thought of being taken down by an armed civilian. I am, however, a great supporter of a law abiding armed civilian. In my opinion, that is a responsible civilian.
Interesting how your America and my America are so different. I wonder how these differences will be resolved someday. Let's hope it is done so peacefully.
Best of luck to you.

They had muskets back then. So keep your single shot rifles, no problem. But an AR-15 designed to empty a 30 round clip in a few seconds is only going to be used on innocent ( or not so innocent in some cases ) people, not in some right winger anti-government wet dream.

John, did you get your information that "few people supported Paul Revere" from Sarah Palin? According to her Revere was actually telling the British that we (civilians) were coming to kick their butts.

If this were 1775, NOBODY would have semi or automatic weapons because they weren't invented yet! Thanks for the laugh buddy.

Ok, Ed, you'd be dressed in red too. Most people learn, while in the military, that the AR is a fun to shoot, target rifle. However, while the AR's they purchase in the civilian market do cosmetically look scary, they are semi-auto, and do not shoot 30 rounds/second. Yes, the civilian's of 1775 had state of art rifles, but not today.

I said a few seconds, dont misquote me with your ramblings. I'm familiar with the mechanics of quite a few firearms. I'm also quite aware of how .223 round ammunition is capable of completely disfiguring the faces of small children to an almost unrecognizable state, just as it did a few weeks ago to the young extended family member of somebody I'm close to. I'm also familiar with passive take-down devices the military has developed that can render you too incoherent to even raise your weapon. I'm also more familiar with the statistical odds of your gun being used in the commission of a crime after it is stolen from your home ( or maybe used by yourself ) vs the odds of a government rebellion. See I trade in logic, not in anecdotes and right wing talking points.

Ed, all firearms can disfigured a person, a 100 year old shot gun for example. My argument, that modern sporting rifles are fun to shoot, you countered with left-wing talking points. In CT, against a group of little six-year kids, the deranged killer could have used any firearm and achieved the same result. Had he used a shotgun, gasoline, dynamite or an AR firing single-shots, 6 YO kids cannot defend themselves. Also, your argument that because someone can steal my guns, I shouldn't own them can also be used to support taking away rights you value.

Mark, the 2nd amendment was written during an era where the only firearms that existed were muskets and single shot pistols that took a well trained and seasoned soldier at least 60 seconds to reload. "Ammo" consisted of gun powder and a small lead ball. Older laws can and should updated top reflect current issues and challenges.

A time such as this? What for when a black Democrat is President so mentally unstable racist think they need to stock pile guns and ammo to defend against a UN invasion?

Mark, I am a gun owner and have a permit to carry concealed. I am not for banning guns. I am for common sense solutions that may prevent mentally ill/evil people from having the means to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes. How much ammo do you really need to "defend" your self? How many assualt weapons (you can only fire two a time). Guns for personal self defense are acceptable. Stock piling large numbers of assualt weapons and ammo is not which is why we need a national gun and ammo registery. This way law enforcement can quickly see who has what and if something doesn't look right, investigate further (for example the story on the patch the other day about he mentally unstable, wife beating cop who had 45+ guns and tried to keep some hidden after being arrested).

Sorry Mark but it is YOU that is the problem. Too much of a punk to feel "safe" without a stock pile of guns and ammo....pathetic.

Uh YOU started with the name calling stating "I think your the problem 1" - I simply responded.

Now go get your shine box....