Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10983 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: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3732 May 24, 2013
Squach wrote:
You liberals and your liberal policies PUT THEM OUT THERE FREE TO MAIM AND KILL AGAIN AND AGAIN!!
You gun gnutters gave him the assault weapon to kill these little children.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#3735 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You gun gnutters gave him the assault weapon to kill these little children.
No dipsh!t, he murdered a gun owner and stole the weapon. Now let's see, is murder against the law? Yep. Is stealing against the law? Yep. Is it against the law to transport a stolen weapon? Yep. There are three existing laws that weren't enforced before any children were harmed or killed. I'm sure there are many more violations that could have gotten this clown arrested before he ever reached the school. Once he got to the school, is it against the law to bring guns to a school? Yep. Is it against the law to trespass on school property if you don't have official business there? Yep. Is it against the law to shoot at school children with any type of weapon? Yep. Is it against the law to harm or kill children in school? Yep. Is it against the law to kill faculty in a school? Yep. As a matter of fact, it is against the law to even plan to do any of the above. Why weren't those laws enforced in a timely manner? That's just the short list of failed laws in this case, with a little research I could come up with a lot more.

Just how do you think another bullshit, ineffective, knee-jerk reactionary law that only impacts the law abiding while ignoring the fact that criminals and psychos almost never attempt to obtain weapons legally would have changed the tragedy in Sandy Hook? Now, consider your answer very carefully. You don’t want to confirm every sane persons suspicion that you’re a complete idiot.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3736 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
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3737 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You gun gnutters gave him the assault weapon to kill these little children.
No, that sounds far more like something an evil demonRat would do.(Not intending to infer that there are demonRats that are not "evil" mind you).

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3738 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
~stomp stomp stomp~
Ninety percent of Americans want universal background checks.
Nine percent of Americans are felons.
That leaves... one percent...
USA TODAY Poll: Public support for gun control ebbs
Susan Page, USA TODAY8:14 a.m. EDT April 23, 2013

WASHINGTON -- Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a USA TODAY Poll finds support for a new gun-control law ebbing as prospects for passage on Capitol Hill seem to fade.

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2...

Support for gun control slips below 50 percent after Senate vote
By Justin Sink - 04/23/13 11:16 AM ET

Fewer than 50 percent of Americans say they support stricter gun controls, according to a survey released Tuesday — the first time since December's Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting that less than half of those surveyed say they would back a new gun law.

According to the USA Today survey, 49 percent of Americans say they support passing a new gun control law while 45 percent oppose new legislation. That's down from 55 percent who supported new regulations in April and 61 percent in February.

Last week, Senate Democrats failed to win the 60 votes necessary to move forward on a compromise bill that would have expanded background checks and instituted new penalties on so-called straw purchasers. Senate leaders had already acknowledged they were unlikely to win enough votes on an assault weapons ban or legislation limiting the size of magazine capacities — two suggestions of President Obama's gun violence commission.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#3739 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how I can quote exactly what SCOTUS said and you insist we are supposed to ignore it.
Heller isn't that long...
<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
I didn't say anything about ignoring it. I even listed many of the limits. I may not agree the Justice Scalia on some of those limits but, after all, he's just one Justice. What I did is call your stupid arse on ignoring the fact that the same court, including the same Justice, CONFIRMED that the right to keep and bear is an inalienable individual right identified, guaranteed, and protected by the Constitution of The United States of America. Plain and simple.

Do try to pay attention, will ya? I know it's difficult for someone of your limited abilities but give it a shot. Okay?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3740 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how I continue to post EXACTLY what was said, and you have to paraphrase.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA!
EITHER YOU PROVE IT OR STFU.
<quoted text>
There were NO federal 'gun control laws' prior to the year 1934 in the United States.

And the federal government FAILED o enforce the United States Constitution in states that did infringe upon the right.

The only exception being when the federal upheld the 14th amendment. And did attempt to uphold the right to keep and bear arms for the newly freed slaves. Which of course the demonRat party put an end to.

The demonRat party has a LONG HISTORY of support for SLAVERY. As well as for 'gun control', in order to ENSLAVE ALL people; regardless of race, creed, or color.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3741 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh...
Let's look at that EXACT quote again...
<quoted text>
"There were NO federal 'gun control laws' prior to the year 1934 in the United States.

"And the federal government FAILED to enforce the United States Constitution in states that had infringed upon the right.

"The only exception being when the federal upheld the 14th amendment. And did attempt to uphold the right to keep and bear arms for the newly freed slaves. Which of course the demonRat party put an end to.

"The demonRat party has a LONG HISTORY of support for SLAVERY. As well as for 'gun control', in order to ENSLAVE ALL people; regardless of race, creed, or color."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3742 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"There were NO federal 'gun control laws' prior to the year 1934 in the United States.
Poor GAYDavy.

Tries to change his quote... but I have the orginal...
GunShow1 wrote:
Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3743 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
As well as for 'gun control', in order to ENSLAVE ALL people; regardless of race, creed, or color.
Funny how GAYDavy insists the Democrats have a long history of gun control but in the next breath insists there was no gun control before 1934...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3744 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds.
90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?

By Scott Clement, Published: April 3, 2013 at 11:10

Nine in 10 Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a political issue and a finding that’s been duplicated in nearly every major public poll.
Surveys show broad support spans gun owners and non-gun owners alike, Democrats and Republicans, and even among members of the National Rifle Association, whose leadership is leading efforts to spike the measure from pending legislation.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3745 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how GAYDavy insists the Democrats have a long history of gun control but in the next breath insists there was no gun control before 1934...
Check out the Jim Crowe 'laws', you vile racist demonRat traitor-troll.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3746 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor GAYDavy.
Tries to change his quote... but I have the orginal...
<quoted text>
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;

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

United States Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article. VI.: 2nd and 3rd clauses;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3747 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?
By Scott Clement, Published: April 3, 2013 at 11:10
Nine in 10 Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a political issue and a finding that’s been duplicated in nearly every major public poll.
Surveys show broad support spans gun owners and non-gun owners alike, Democrats and Republicans, and even among members of the National Rifle Association, whose leadership is leading efforts to spike the measure from pending legislation.
USA TODAY Poll: Public support for gun control ebbs
Susan Page, USA TODAY8:14 a.m. EDT April 23, 2013

WASHINGTON -- Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a USA TODAY Poll finds support for a new gun-control law ebbing as prospects for passage on Capitol Hill seem to fade.

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2...

Support for gun control slips below 50 percent after Senate vote
By Justin Sink - 04/23/13 11:16 AM ET

Fewer than 50 percent of Americans say they support stricter gun controls, according to a survey released Tuesday — the first time since December's Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting that less than half of those surveyed say they would back a new gun law.

According to the USA Today survey, 49 percent of Americans say they support passing a new gun control law while 45 percent oppose new legislation. That's down from 55 percent who supported new regulations in April and 61 percent in February.

Last week, Senate Democrats failed to win the 60 votes necessary to move forward on a compromise bill that would have expanded background checks and instituted new penalties on so-called straw purchasers. Senate leaders had already acknowledged they were unlikely to win enough votes on an assault weapons ban or legislation limiting the size of magazine capacities — two suggestions of President Obama's gun violence commission.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#3748 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
USA TODAY Poll: Public support for gun control ebbs
Susan Page, USA TODAY8:14 a.m. EDT April 23, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a USA TODAY Poll finds support for a new gun-control law ebbing as prospects for passage on Capitol Hill seem to fade.
Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2...
Support for gun control slips below 50 percent after Senate vote
By Justin Sink - 04/23/13 11:16 AM ET
Fewer than 50 percent of Americans say they support stricter gun controls, according to a survey released Tuesday — the first time since December's Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting that less than half of those surveyed say they would back a new gun law.
According to the USA Today survey, 49 percent of Americans say they support passing a new gun control law while 45 percent oppose new legislation. That's down from 55 percent who supported new regulations in April and 61 percent in February.
Last week, Senate Democrats failed to win the 60 votes necessary to move forward on a compromise bill that would have expanded background checks and instituted new penalties on so-called straw purchasers. Senate leaders had already acknowledged they were unlikely to win enough votes on an assault weapons ban or legislation limiting the size of magazine capacities — two suggestions of President Obama's gun violence commission.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...
The libs keep using the same old 90% poll. How boring! Is that all they have? Yep, it sure is. Hey libs that poll is worthless, it's old and out dated! But if you want to keep posting the same old, outdated 90%poll, well knock yourself out with your stupidity.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3749 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how GAYDavy insists the Democrats have a long history of gun control but in the next breath insists there was no gun control before 1934...
"Affray....

"5. Nor unless such wearing be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; consequently the wearing of common weapons, or having the usual number of attendants, merely for ornament or defense, where it is customary to make use of them, will not subject a person to the penalties of this act. Ibid. s. 9.[Pg. 50]

"Act of 1805, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p. 108.

"Sect. 1. No free negro or mulatto shall keep or carry a fire-lock of any kind, or military weapon, or powder, or lead, without a licence from the court of the county or corporation; which licence may, at any time, be withdrawn. Arms, &c. so kept, shall be forfeited to the informer...."

"(A) A Certificate of the seizure of a gun, &c. on sect. 8, of 1 Rev, Code, p 187.

"county, to wit.

"Whereas AJ, of the county aforesaid, labourer, hath this day brought before me, JP, a justice of the peace for the said county, one gun, with powder and shot, by him found and seized in the bands and possession of a certain free mulatto man, known by the name of (or negro man slave belonging to as the case may be) who is not by law qualified to keep the same; and the said AJ having also, before me, made due proof of such seizure as aforesaid. By virtue of an act of the general assembly in that case made and provided, I do hereby order and direct, that the said AJ shall and may retain the said gun, powder and shot, to his own use; and that the said mulatto man shall receive thirty lashes upon his bare back, well laid on, which last sentence AC, a constable in this county, is ordered ta exetute. Given under my hand and seal, &c.
[Pg. 554]

SLAVES.

(B) Licence to keep arms and ammunition.

[This can only be granted by the court. See 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p 108.][Pg. 555]

-[The New Virginia Justice, Comprising the Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. TOGETHER WITH A VARIETY OF USEFUL PRECEDENTS, ADAPTED TO THE LAWS NOW IN FORCE. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING ALL THE MOST APPROVED FORMS IN CONVEYANCING: SUCH AS DEEDS OF BARGAIN AND SALE, OF LEASE AND RELEASE; OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, BILLS OF SALE, &c. ALSO, THE DUTIES OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. By William Waller Hening, Attorney At Law. The Second Edition, Revised, Corrected, Greatly Enlarged, and Brought Down to the Present Time. By the Author. RICHMOND: PUBLISHED BY JOHNSON & WARNER. 1810.]

"Licensing" was intended for "SLAVES", and NOT free people.
bobby6464

Bellevue, WA

#3750 May 24, 2013
INTENDED you yap, ha ha ha ha ha ahhh you dumb ass

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3751 May 24, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
INTENDED you yap, ha ha ha ha ha ahhh you dumb ass
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]

[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, arms, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."

- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#3752 May 24, 2013
bobby6464 wrote:
INTENDED you yap, ha ha ha ha ha ahhh you dumb ass
Danny's back!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3753 May 24, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>The libs keep using the same old 90% poll. How boring! Is that all they have? Yep, it sure is. Hey libs that poll is worthless, it's old and out dated! But if you want to keep posting the same old, outdated 90%poll, well knock yourself out with your stupidity.
Indeed.

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 McRgo E'News: National Reciprocity & December C... Fri Jim Wildrick Jr 1
News Pelosi's claim the House GOP is 'inviting' viol... Thu Say What 8
News Florida: Another Mass Murder Stopped by Armed C... Dec 12 im not a doctor 9
News Lancaster County's congressmen vote opposite wa... Dec 11 jimwildrickjr 1
News Supreme Court turns away challenge to Md. assau... Dec 6 im not a doctor 6
News Florida Church Warns Visitors That Members Are ... Dec 5 im not a doctor 2
A Breakdown of Reloading at Home Nov 27 SummerBB8 1
More from around the web