Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11004 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.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10227 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stick to what you know, Sissy: bring lonely truck drivers to happy endings for a low, low price at rest stops near your home.
And once again we see the FACT-LESS propaganda spewing troll at home in the gutter.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10228 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you are finally admitting that you slandered Mr. Hamilton, you propaganda spewing troll.
Here's your big chance, GayDavy: SHOW EVERYONE THE QUOTE!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10229 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your big chance, GayDavy: SHOW EVERYONE THE QUOTE!
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
What? That you're a treasonous propagandizing troll? That would be redundant. For everyone knows that to be a fact already.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#10230 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't the brightest bulb in the box.
"dominate"...
This from the moron with a head full of phallic images(among other foul nasty things)? Go figure.....

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10232 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
What? That you're a treasonous propagandizing troll? That would be redundant.
Gosh... if only you could find the quote.

Let me show you how quotes are found...

Here you go:
Innocent Gun Owners Behind Bars
2ndAmRight
Since: Oct 13
Apache Junction, AZ
#21
Friday Nov 1
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”--The Constitution Society, "Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest"
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.ht ...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10233 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you are finally admitting that you slandered Mr. Hamilton,
Still waiting, GumsShow.

Slander... dead... two hundred years...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10234 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh... if only you could find the quote.
Let me show you how quotes are found...
Here you go:
<quoted text>
THIS is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to state on the subject:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).

So then, as everyone can see it is YOU that had it jammed up YOUR treasonous sycophant tailpipe. "Plummer" means absolutely NOTHING of relevance to the issue at hand PERIOD. Take a hike, pathetic troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10235 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting, GumsShow.
Slander... dead... two hundred years...
Not my problem you can't understand American law.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#10236 Nov 15, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
this coming from our hillbilly retard who doesn't understand what the word "dominates" signifies...bwhahhahahahh....9 out of 10 states is "dominates"...go fondle your sphincter
Filthy bigoted POS. The word "dominate" has nothing to do with the geographical location of Michigan. And there are 50 states, does 9 out of 50 sound like domination? You should work on your communication skills, maybe you'd be able to convey a cogent thought once in a while instead of all this disjointed babbling. Pulling your head out of your arse long enough to get some oxygen to that one surviving brain cell is a good place to start. Now put your helmet on and crawl back under your slimy rock.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10239 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
THIS is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to state on the subject:
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”

The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10240 Nov 15, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Filthy bigoted POS. The word "dominate" has nothing to do with the geographical location of Michigan. And there are 50 states, does 9 out of 50 sound like domination?
When they are at the top of the list, dumbsh!t, yes.

The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Nine out of ten are SOUTH.

Seven are "deep south".

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#10241 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
When they are at the top of the list, dumbsh!t, yes.
The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Nine out of ten are SOUTH.
Seven are "deep south".
Exactly why does that matter? What's the point? Aren't all of those states part of America? In the big picture all of those homicides occurred in America, so what are you trying to say? Just another way for you to express your bigoted ignorance? What are the actual numbers of homicides for each state represented by those statistics? Does a densely populated state get to kill off more people than a thinly populated state before it is considered a dangerous place? How about homicides per square mile of each state? No matter how you choose to manipulate the statistics to indulge your bigotry they're all American homicides, aren't they? Does it hurt to be as stupid as you?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10242 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”
The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest
THIS is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to state on the subject:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17...

So then, as everyone can see it is YOU that had it jammed up YOUR treasonous sycophant tailpipe. "Plummer" means absolutely NOTHING of relevance to the issue at hand PERIOD. Take a hike, pathetic troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10243 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
When they are at the top of the list, dumbsh!t, yes.
The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Nine out of ten are SOUTH.
Seven are "deep south".
WRONG AGAIN, O' pathetic propagandizing troll:

October 26, 2013

Gun Homicide Rates per 100,000 people

1. New Orleans (62.1)
2. Detroit (35.9)
3. Baltimore (29.7)
4. Newark (25.4)
5. Miami (23.7)
6. Washington D.C.(19)
7. Atlanta (17.2)
8. Cleveland (17.4)
9. Buffalo (16.5)
10. Houston (12.9)
11. Chicago (11.6)
12. Phoenix (10.6)
13. Los Angeles (9.2)[Add incorporated cities and it goes UP]
14. Boston (6.2)
15. New York City (4)
http://www.policymic.com/articles/70199/some-...

Of particular interest, is that the VAST MAJORITY [NINE out of FIFTEEN] of those cities are northern demonrat strongholds. And well over a third have the most stringent 'gun control' laws in the nation.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10244 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”
The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest
And then of course there's the ACTUAL TRUTH:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37.

>>>>>If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."<<<< <

--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17...

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#10247 Nov 16, 2013
Irelands own wrote:
<quoted text>Keep up all the idiot posts...all you are doing is confirming that liberals are of lower intelligence, America haters, and lazy losers.
By the way, why do liberal women look like male cross dressers? Maybe that's part of your problem...your women are either lesbians or look manly.
Erin Go Bragh! LOL.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10251 Nov 16, 2013
satanlives wrote:
"...But great complaint is made of the war preparations of South Carolina. Can any one be serious in saying that there is no cause for this? A State surrounded by military force denied the right to prepare to meet it? Take care, Mr. Speaker this is alarming doctrine to the States! In vain the constitution allows the privilege to the citizen to bear arms for his protection, if, when he rubs up his musket and furnishes it with a fiint, he runs the risk of becoming a traitor! Sir, preparation is no force; as well may you tell me that the gentleman who sits before me with his sword cane, and which, no doubt, he carries for his honest defence, is obliged to run it through the body of the first man he meets, because he has thought proper to be ready for the assaults of either insolence or avarice. I well remember, sir, my own State had once to make warlike preparation against the usurpations of this same Government, and I should like to see the man who would dare to say she meant any thing more than the lawful defence of her undoubted rights. Against this Union she never meditated the slightest movement; but against the unconstitutional acts ot its Government, she did plant herself upon her arms, and hurled defiance in the very teeth of your usurping laws. What Georgia has done in good faith against the designs of arbitrary power, I am willing to accord to other States, without imputing bad motives to the act."--[Judge] Augustin S. Clayton, Feb. 27, 1833.[REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME IX. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1833. Pg. 1834](Judge Augustin S. Clayton, served in both the Georgia House of Representatives and Georgia Senate, and then a representative of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1831–1835).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10253 Nov 16, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly why does that matter?
Gosh, Sissy, I'm not here to think things through for you- when you deny that southern states "dominate" the list of gun fatalities and the only thing we have is proof that nine out of ten are in the south.

After all: you deny the sun rises in the east.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10254 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
And then of course there's the ACTUAL TRUTH:
Truth doesn't move around- like you move from the Plummer case to the Bad Elk case...

"Internet meme

This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”

The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[22]

The other case cited in the above "quotation" is the U.S. Supreme Court case Bad Elk v. United States[23] in which a tribal police officer was granted a new trial after being convicted of killing another tribal police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest. At the initial trial, the jury was not instructed that it could convict on a lesser offense, such as manslaughter."

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10255 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
1833
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!

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 BOOM: DC Forced to Issue Concealed Carry Permit... 20 hr Zzznorch 1
Stop white on white crime 23 hr Truth and Facts 32
News Concealed Carry Shot Down-- Supporters Will Giv... (Mar '06) 23 hr Denny CranesPlace 4
News D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed protesters' (May '13) May 27 Truth and Facts 639
News COD Offers Classes Promoting Firearm Safety thi... May 25 Dr David 1
News No wedding for Bristol Palin May 24 Tazo 9
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... May 18 Truth and Facts 3
More from around the web