Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion 11,004

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.

Full Story

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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1283 Apr 23, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No I didn't.

You're arguing with that strawman again. Give him hell! LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1284 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"'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)]
Sorry, but quoting approvingly from the Dred Scott decision pretty much proves that you are intellectually bankrupt.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1285 Apr 23, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
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]
Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about established legal precedent.

Maybe you should make your argument with the knucklehead who's quoting approvingly from the Dred Scott decision. LOL!

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1286 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Do you even have a brain? EVERYTHING I post PROVES that >you< and your sidekicks have NO idea of our system of government. Your own words betray your ineptitude.

There is NO "current status" of the "law of the land". The Constitution maintains it's SUPREMACY regardless of those attempting to subvert it,(such as yourself for instance). Other than the perversions of it being perpetrated by our treasonous hired servants. At the concurrence of equally treasonous sycophants such as yourself. The Constitution is STILL SUPREME.

And just because the people of Boston rolled over and let their hired servants walk all over them. Does NOT mean that the rest of We The People will permit the same.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1287 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but quoting approvingly from the Dred Scott decision pretty much proves that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Not quite, O' intellectually challenged one:

"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)]"

Take a hike.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1288 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about established legal precedent.
Maybe you should make your argument with the knucklehead who's quoting approvingly from the Dred Scott decision. LOL!
""The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"--Chief Justice Collier, Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).

...For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution....--Bliss vs. Commonwealth,[12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1289 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about established legal precedent.
Maybe you should make your argument with the knucklehead who's quoting approvingly from the Dred Scott decision. LOL!
"Now, in questions of this sort, precedents ought to go for absolutely NOTHING. The constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, NOT to be departed from in practice NOR altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine. Instead, therefore, of resting on the fact, that the right in question has universally been assumed by the American courts, the judge who asserts it ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the constitution."--John Bannister Gibson, in dissent in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant and Rawle 330, Pennsylvania 1825.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1290 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even have a brain? EVERYTHING I post PROVES that >you< and your sidekicks have NO idea of our system of government. Your own words betray your ineptitude.
There is NO "current status" of the "law of the land". The Constitution maintains it's SUPREMACY regardless of those attempting to subvert it,(such as yourself for instance). Other than the perversions of it being perpetrated by our treasonous hired servants. At the concurrence of equally treasonous sycophants such as yourself. The Constitution is STILL SUPREME.
And just because the people of Boston rolled over and let their hired servants walk all over them. Does NOT mean that the rest of We The People will permit the same.
Honestly, I'm not sure you even graduated from middle school given your incredibly juvenile reasoning skills. You think like a child.

Current law does not subvert the Constitution. We have the most robust judiciary in the history of the world. Horrible decisions like Dred Scott are overturned and mistakes by the SCOTUS are reversed.

You rant and rave as if I'm arguing for a set of laws that contravene the Constitution when I've said no such thing.

You rant and rave as if your Constitutional rights have been infringed by existing Constitutional law.

You rant and rave as if your rights haven't been systematically EXPANDED over the past 200 years.

Your arguments are irrational. Your beliefs are juvenile. You are a dipshit high-school graduate manager of a storage shed who fancies himself a legal scholar.

Get a grip moron.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1291 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, O' intellectually challenged one:
"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)]"
Take a hike.
You quotes Dred Scott.

You're an idiot.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1292 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
""The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"--Chief Justice Collier, Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).
Source:
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.htm...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1293 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
...For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution....--Bliss vs. Commonwealth,[12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
Source:
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/12ky90.htm...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1294 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"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).

"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).

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1295 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now, in questions of this sort, precedents ought to go for absolutely NOTHING. The constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, NOT to be departed from in practice NOR altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine. Instead, therefore, of resting on the fact, that the right in question has universally been assumed by the American courts, the judge who asserts it ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the constitution."--John Bannister Gibson, in dissent in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant and Rawle 330, Pennsylvania 1825.
Source:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1296 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You quotes Dred Scott.
You're an idiot.
"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1297 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And We The People's Constitution EXPRESSLY DECLARES that they do NOT.
So, according to you, NO police EVER have the right to search, arrest or otherwise detain anyone for any reason.

That's ANARCHY

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1298 Apr 23, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, I'm not sure you even graduated from middle school given your incredibly juvenile reasoning skills. You think like a child.
Current law does not subvert the Constitution. We have the most robust judiciary in the history of the world. Horrible decisions like Dred Scott are overturned and mistakes by the SCOTUS are reversed.
You rant and rave as if I'm arguing for a set of laws that contravene the Constitution when I've said no such thing.
You rant and rave as if your Constitutional rights have been infringed by existing Constitutional law.
You rant and rave as if your rights haven't been systematically EXPANDED over the past 200 years.
Your arguments are irrational. Your beliefs are juvenile. You are a dipshit high-school graduate manager of a storage shed who fancies himself a legal scholar.
Get a grip moron.
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."--16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1299 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"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).
Source:
http://www.teapartyinfo.com/quote-bank.html

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1300 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"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).
Source:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html
Really

Fayetteville, PA

#1302 Apr 23, 2013
What's with Dan the man giving all the sources? Are you now on Gun's side by helping him out? Because you sure aren't helping your side.

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
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 9 min obama race team 11,295
Ferguson, Clive Bundy, and the Second Amendment 32 min Nobody can 439
Eric Frein manhunt turns up explosives 11 hr FreinGATE 14
My God Wed Jimmyok 1
Open carry supporters walk through downtown St.... Wed aztimberwolf 1
Woman Posts Yard Sign To "Out" Neighbor As Conc... Tue Squach 19
D.C. Will Appeal Court Decision Overturning Con... Tue Tory II 1

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE