Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11002 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.

bobby6464

Charlotte, NC

#3704 May 23, 2013
I don't know but you tea bags had sore buts after election, which could be the cause for a the forum tea bag crying

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#3705 May 23, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
I don't know but you tea bags had sore buts after election, which could be the cause for a the forum tea bag crying
What's a 'tea bag?'

And the election was rigged from the get-go. So if you happen to think that your vote counts, then you're even more gullible than I thought.

Hell, the whole state of Maine was barred from the Republican convention.
bobby6464

Charlotte, NC

#3706 May 23, 2013
Highlander the liar, remember how mad you felt when America said screw the racial hating tea bags on election day? Voter fraud voter fraud VOTER FRAUD. Keep on sayingtthat til election day 2014, please do that. Ahhhhhhhhhhh your a dumb ass
bobby6464

Charlotte, NC

#3707 May 23, 2013
Highlander, enjoy the vote feature on this forum
bobby6464

Charlotte, NC

#3708 May 23, 2013
Your worthless vote is important only on this forum highlander. Exercise your tea bag right to be ignorant, boy
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#3709 May 23, 2013
Danny has been quite busy the last few hours posting as the little racist, bobby6464.

Danny must still be licking his wounds. So his alter ego fills in for him. Poor little weak Danny. The laughing stock of the Chambersburg Forum.
bobby6464

Charlotte, NC

#3710 May 23, 2013
You wish mentally retarded Marisa that I was that Dan guy, but I'm not. Go take your mental health drugs and relax. As you sure got them racial hating tea bags fooled. That wasn't to hard to accomplish, ha ha ahhhh dumb ass. Keep proving your self worth to be frigging worthless
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#3711 May 23, 2013
AH look at poor lonely Danny/bobby...in his usual fashion he jumps as soon as there is a post. Poor little sap just sits there in front of his computer screen waiting and waitng for a post to pop up. And when it does he is ready with excitement to respond with his hate filled racist remarks.

Poor loney weak little man. All he has is his little computer and the Chambersburg forum for companionship.
bobby6464

Charlotte, NC

#3712 May 23, 2013
Ahh that's so sweet mental Marisa

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3713 May 23, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
Ahh that's so sweet mental Marisa
Look troll, it wasn't our fault you were beaten so mercilessly and as often as you were. Now be a good little troll and get back out on the freeway and play. Remember to wait for rush hour...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3715 May 23, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
You wish mentally retarded Marisa that I was that Dan guy, but I'm not. Go take your mental health drugs and relax. As you sure got them racial hating tea bags fooled. That wasn't to hard to accomplish, ha ha ahhhh dumb ass. Keep proving your self worth to be frigging worthless
"ART. 2. Massachusetts statute.
"ss 1. This enacts "that if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being armed with clubs or other weapons, or if any number of persons, consisting of thirty or more, shall be unlawfully, routously, riotously, or tumultuously assembled, any justice of the peace, sheriff, or deputy sheriff of the county, or constable of the town, shall, among the rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, command silence while proclamation is making, and shall openly make proclamation in these or like words;" then follows the form of the proclamation; and if they disperse not in one hour after proclamation made or attempted to be made, the officer may command sufficient aid and shall seize, them who shall be had before a justice of the peace, and such officer may require a sufficient number of people in arms, if the rioters or any of them appeared armed, and if any of the rioters by their resistance be killed the officers and assistants are held guiltless.{Side Note: Mass. Act. 0ct. 28, 1786.--Maine Act, ch. 17.--Ken. Act, Dec. 19, 1801, s.32.}
"ss 2. Also enacts, that if any person refuses such assistance he forfeits not more than 10, nor less than 2, to the Commonwealth, which may be recovered on indictment or information as it is to the Commonwealth...."
[A GENERAL ABRIDGMENT AND DIGEST OF AMERICAN LAW, WITH OCCASIONAL Notes and Comments BY NATHAN DANE LL.D. COUNSELLOR AT LAW. IN EIGHT VOLUMES. VOL. VII. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY CUMMINGS, HILLIARD & CO. 1824.]

Since: Sep 12

Seattle, WA

#3716 May 24, 2013
Guns Save Lives

Gun control laws make crime a safer occupation when victims are unarmed.

We all know that guns can cost lives because the media repeat this message endlessly, as if we could not figure it out for ourselves. But even someone who reads newspapers regularly and watches numerous television newscasts may never learn that guns also save lives—much less see any hard facts comparing how many lives are lost and how many are saved.

But that trade-off is the real issue, not the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association, which so many in the media obsess about. If guns cost more lives than they save, we can always repeal the Second Amendment. But if guns save more lives than they cost, we need to know that, instead of spending time demonizing the National Rifle Association.

The defensive use of guns is usually either not discussed at all in the media or else is depicted as if it means bullets flying in all directions, like the gunfight at the OK Corral. But most defensive uses of guns do not involve actually pulling the trigger.

If someone comes at you with a knife and you point a gun at him, he is very unlikely to keep coming, and far more likely to head in the other direction, perhaps in some haste, if he has a brain in his head. Only if he is an idiot are you likely to have to pull the trigger. And if he is an idiot with a knife coming after you, you had better have a trigger to pull.

Surveys of American gun owners have found that 4 to 6 percent reported using a gun in self-defense within the previous five years. That is not a very high percentage but, in a country with 300 million people, that works out to hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns per year.

Yet we almost never hear about these hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns from the media, which will report the killing of a dozen people endlessly around the clock.

The murder of a dozen innocent people is unquestionably a human tragedy. But that is no excuse for reacting blindly by preventing hundreds of thousands of other people from defending themselves against meeting the same fate.

Although most defensive uses of guns do not involve actually shooting, nevertheless the total number of criminals killed by armed private citizens runs into the thousands per year. A gun can also come in handy if a pit bull or some other dangerous animal is after you or your child.

We need to recognize the painful reality that, regardless of what we do or don’t do about gun control laws, there will be innocent people killed by guns. We can then look at hard facts in order to decide how we can minimize the number of needless deaths.

But that is not the way the issue is presented by many in politics or the media. Every story about an accidental shooting in the home will be repeated again and again, while a thousand stories about lives saved by defensive uses of a gun will never see the light of day in most newspapers or on most television newscasts.

More children may die in bathtub accidents than in shooting accidents, but you are not likely to read that in most newspapers or see it on television newscasts. Some in the media inflate the number of children killed by counting as children the members of criminal teenage gangs who shoot each other in their turf fights.

Many seize upon statistics which show that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates. Yet they ignore other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, but which have much higher murder rates, such as Brazil, Russia and Mexico.

Even in the case of Britain, London had a much lower murder rate than New York during the years after New York State’s 1911 Sullivan Law imposed very strict gun control, while anyone could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked in the 1950s.

Thomas Sowell

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3717 May 24, 2013
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
But the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
What part of 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' do you not comprehend?
JusticeScalia wrote:
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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Too many words?
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3718 May 24, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
Please list some of the Federal Gun control legislation
Gosh...

Let's look at that EXACT quote again...
GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3719 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
OCTOBER, 1814
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam;

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3720 May 24, 2013
Dave Rogers wrote:
But if guns save more lives than they cost, we need to know that, instead of spending time demonizing the National Rifle Association.
The NRA was fighting for the "right" to carry assault weapons into public schools in Michigan on the day someone with a NRA certificate was killing six year old children in Sandy Hook.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3721 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
1824.]
Vikings : Spam spam spam spam 1824 spam

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#3724 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
Too many words?
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
Yeah, Justice the 2nd amendment is understood to mean "INDIVIDUAL" arms and so does not include fully automatic machine guns, tanks, 8" deck guns, mountain Howitzers, 88mm mortars, ICBMs, nuclear torpedoes, Patriot missiles, bunker busters, 106mm recoilless rifles, Vulcan mini-guns, fighter jets, strategic bombers, cobra gunships, etc. All of which are already covered by existing laws and regulations.

The REALLY important part of the SCOTUS recent decisions is a confirmation that the right to keep and bear arms IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT totally independent of any membership in "a well regulated militia". You rather conveniently overlooked that part.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3726 May 24, 2013
Squach wrote:
The REALLY important part of the SCOTUS recent decisions is
Funny how I can quote exactly what SCOTUS said and you insist we are supposed to ignore it.

Heller isn't that long...
JusticeScalia wrote:
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.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3727 May 24, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim there were Federal Gun laws prior to 1934.
Funny how I continue to post EXACTLY what was said, and you have to paraphrase.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA!

EITHER YOU PROVE IT OR STFU.
GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 1 hr davy 1,185
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a "paraly... 8 hr Jagermann 1
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 14 hr Le Jimbo 9
News Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... Sun OK Barry 61
Freestanding B-e-l-f-a-s-t Sink Unit Jun 23 boyocuy 1
News The Latest: House GOP says electronic devices s... Jun 23 payme 2
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 22 Uncle Bens AWOLdaddy 68
More from around the web