Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 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: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1263 Apr 23, 2013
local yocal wrote:
Loonie tunes! YAHOO! I betca the big dummy nuggin nut wrote them cartoons. golly! Why didn't i figure that out beforethe big nut makes movies so i betcha he made loonie tunes. I bet he even wrote psycho. nuggins the loonie tune movie man.
You forgot to switch back to your other account Marisa

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1264 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called "exigent circumstances" dipshit.
If you'd read some constitutional law written within the last 50 years you'd know that.
When you're stuck 200 years ago reading the Constitution and founders' quotes through your own high school educated brain, you're bound to believe, then say, stupid shit that's just flat-out wrong.
WRONG, you statist boot-licker. Our Constitution is PARAMOUNT to ANY 'rule' making made thereafter. Regardless of what our hired servants claim.

If you were a TRUE American, you would understand that. But apparently you are NOT a TRUE American. Rather, you are a sycophant; votary of tyranny and usurpation - TRAITOR.

Enjoy your chains,'subject'.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1265 Apr 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no evidence that any of the people in the picture were arrested.
There's no evidence that the police did not have a search warrant.
Until you can demonstrate those two violations, you are speculating.
TURN ON THE NEWS, sycophant.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1266 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG, you statist boot-licker. Our Constitution is PARAMOUNT to ANY 'rule' making made thereafter. Regardless of what our hired servants claim.
If you were a TRUE American, you would understand that. But apparently you are NOT a TRUE American. Rather, you are a sycophant; votary of tyranny and usurpation - TRAITOR.
Enjoy your chains,'subject'.
Aaaahhh, there it is! You reject all Constitutional jurisprudence since the writing of the Constitution.

This irrational, juvenile understanding is the core of your massive confusion and idiotic beliefs about the Constitution and how it is interpreted and applied 200 years later.

Until you can comprehend that we've been developing Constitutional law for over 200 years, you will continue to have an embarrassingly immature understanding of these issues.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#1267 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you getting stupider? I didn't think that was possible, but your posts have become complete gibberish.
Projecting on to other posters your own foibles, is a very classic example of someone who's suffering from a poor self-image.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#1268 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaaahhh, there it is! You reject all Constitutional jurisprudence since the writing of the Constitution.
This irrational, juvenile understanding is the core of your massive confusion and idiotic beliefs about the Constitution and how it is interpreted and applied 200 years later.
Until you can comprehend that we've been developing Constitutional law for over 200 years, you will continue to have an embarrassingly immature understanding of these issues.
You want jurisprudence? Here, I'll give you some:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).

"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
People v Zedillo,{219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."
State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)].

So, you were saying? You might allude to whatever the HELL is is that you'd like, but at the end of the day, there is such a large body of 'settled law,' as to make any of your squeaks become TOTALLY irrelevant.

Now, go back to bed and pull those covers up over your pitiful, miserable little head, because YOU are TOO AWFULLY AFRAID to face life HEAD ON.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1269 Apr 23, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Projecting on to other posters your own foibles, is a very classic example of someone who's suffering from a poor self-image.
I agree completely.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1270 Apr 23, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
You want jurisprudence? Here, I'll give you some:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]
"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60.
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
People v Zedillo,{219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."
State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)].
So, you were saying? You might allude to whatever the HELL is is that you'd like, but at the end of the day, there is such a large body of 'settled law,' as to make any of your squeaks become TOTALLY irrelevant.
Now, go back to bed and pull those covers up over your pitiful, miserable little head, because YOU are TOO AWFULLY AFRAID to face life HEAD ON.
Wow, you're beating the hell out of that strawman you've created.

Too bad none of this has anything to do with me or anything I've said.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1271 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG, you statist boot-licker. Our Constitution is PARAMOUNT to ANY 'rule' making made thereafter. Regardless of what our hired servants claim.
If you were a TRUE American, you would understand that. But apparently you are NOT a TRUE American. Rather, you are a sycophant; votary of tyranny and usurpation - TRAITOR.
Enjoy your chains,'subject'.
.... and so you assume that these citizens are guilty until proven innocent.

Sounds like you need to check in with the Constitution.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1272 Apr 23, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
You want jurisprudence? Here, I'll give you some:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]
"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60.
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
People v Zedillo,{219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."
State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)].
So, you were saying? You might allude to whatever the HELL is is that you'd like, but at the end of the day, there is such a large body of 'settled law,' as to make any of your squeaks become TOTALLY irrelevant.
Now, go back to bed and pull those covers up over your pitiful, miserable little head, because YOU are TOO AWFULLY AFRAID to face life HEAD ON.
Off topic.

We're talking about whether or not cops with a search warrant are allowed to search a home.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1273 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaaahhh, there it is! You reject all Constitutional jurisprudence since the writing of the Constitution.
This irrational, juvenile understanding is the core of your massive confusion and idiotic beliefs about the Constitution and how it is interpreted and applied 200 years later.
Until you can comprehend that we've been developing Constitutional law for over 200 years, you will continue to have an embarrassingly immature understanding of these issues.
Your view is simplistic at best. And treasonous at worst.

A Constitution is FACT - FUNDAMENTAL LAW. It's meaning does NOT change. It can only be altered by the hands that made it - We The People; AS A WHOLE.'legislation' and 'judicial decision' does NOT alter it ONE IOTA. For the hired servants are NOT permitted to alter the WILL of their MASTERS.

"Every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is, ipso facto, void; and it is the duty of the court so to declare it. Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304."

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1274 Apr 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic.
We're talking about whether or not cops with a search warrant are allowed to search a home.
And We The People's Constitution EXPRESSLY DECLARES that they do NOT.
Dixie Chick

Atlanta, GA

#1275 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your view is simplistic at best. And treasonous at worst.
A Constitution is FACT - FUNDAMENTAL LAW. It's meaning does NOT change. It can only be altered by the hands that made it - We The People; AS A WHOLE.'legislation' and 'judicial decision' does NOT alter it ONE IOTA. For the hired servants are NOT permitted to alter the WILL of their MASTERS.
"Every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is, ipso facto, void; and it is the duty of the court so to declare it. Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304."
Another account Davy? Tsk tsk. We'll have to see about this.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1276 Apr 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
.... and so you assume that these citizens are guilty until proven innocent.
Sounds like you need to check in with the Constitution.
PATHETIC.

You cannot win because of the FACTS slamming you down. So you perversely project your own ideological fantasies onto others.

PATHETIC.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1277 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your view is simplistic at best. And treasonous at worst.
A Constitution is FACT - FUNDAMENTAL LAW. It's meaning does NOT change. It can only be altered by the hands that made it - We The People; AS A WHOLE.'legislation' and 'judicial decision' does NOT alter it ONE IOTA. For the hired servants are NOT permitted to alter the WILL of their MASTERS.
"Every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is, ipso facto, void; and it is the duty of the court so to declare it. Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304."
Still clueless I see.

Nobody's changing the meaning of the Constitution. But we've spent 200 years applying its principles to issues that have emerged since it was written.

Case in point - Exigent Circumstances. That is law that the courts have determined does not conflict with the Constitution. Just because you and your juvenile understanding of the Constitution disagrees doesn't change the FACT that it's the law.

You will continue to be enraged and rant and rave as long as you refuse to acknowledge that we have a body of law that has developed over the past 200 years and that your simplistic reading of the Constitution simply isn't the law of the land.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1278 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaaahhh, there it is! You reject all Constitutional jurisprudence since the writing of the Constitution.
This irrational, juvenile understanding is the core of your massive confusion and idiotic beliefs about the Constitution and how it is interpreted and applied 200 years later.
Until you can comprehend that we've been developing Constitutional law for over 200 years, you will continue to have an embarrassingly immature understanding of these issues.
I presently know more concerning our INTENDED system of government than >you< EVER will, sycophant.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#1279 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you're beating the hell out of that strawman you've created.
Too bad none of this has anything to do with me or anything I've said.
It has EVERYTHING to do with what you remarked.
You claimed that there's no jurisprudence to support that matter of keeping and bearing arms.
Well, dispute any of what I posted.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1280 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Still clueless I see.
Nobody's changing the meaning of the Constitution. But we've spent 200 years applying its principles to issues that have emerged since it was written.
Case in point - Exigent Circumstances. That is law that the courts have determined does not conflict with the Constitution. Just because you and your juvenile understanding of the Constitution disagrees doesn't change the FACT that it's the law.
You will continue to be enraged and rant and rave as long as you refuse to acknowledge that we have a body of law that has developed over the past 200 years and that your simplistic reading of the Constitution simply isn't the law of the land.
"'It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.'"--Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709. As quoted by Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court,[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#1281 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Still clueless I see.
Nobody's changing the meaning of the Constitution. But we've spent 200 years applying its principles to issues that have emerged since it was written.
Case in point - Exigent Circumstances. That is law that the courts have determined does not conflict with the Constitution. Just because you and your juvenile understanding of the Constitution disagrees doesn't change the FACT that it's the law.
You will continue to be enraged and rant and rave as long as you refuse to acknowledge that we have a body of law that has developed over the past 200 years and that your simplistic reading of the Constitution simply isn't the law of the land.
Yeah?
Well here's fact for you:

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."
State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1282 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I presently know more concerning our INTENDED system of government than >you< EVER will, sycophant.
LOL! Sure you do.

You certainly know more about YOUR OPINION about the framers' intentions, but you've provided ample proof that you don't know shit about the current status of the law of the land.

Your arguments here will continue to be utterly irrelevant until you can find some sources to cut-n-paste from that were written in the 20th century.

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 Supreme Court Continues to Reschedule Concealed... Jun 21 Daniel stollings 2
News Mass shooters tend to be domestic abusers first Jun 20 Jagermann 2
News GOP House hopeful says more in Congress should ... Jun 16 Red Crosse 3
Former University Professor Suggests the NRA Is... Jun 15 FormerParatrooper 5
News 2nd Amendment: Good Enough for Kim Kardashian, ... Jun 13 Billyball 4
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 3 Grecian Formula 19 75
News New Thermal Scope Offers Amazing Night Vision Jun 2 OwenJames 1
More from around the web