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

#1323 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They had NO "warrant", you back-peddling sycophant. They didn't even have reasonable suspicion. They violated the oaths they took, and proceeded to violate their citizens CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED Rights.
False.

Maybe Storage Unit Dave with his high school education will understand if I just cut-n-paste like he does.

----------

Exigent Circumstances: The presence of exigent circumstances will excuse the lack of a warrant. "Exigent Circumstances" are present, as a general rule, whenever there is no reasonable opportunity for the police officers to stop and take the time to get a search warrant.
-(See United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 107 [13 L.Ed.2nd 684, 688].)

Rule: "[E]xigent circumstances are present when a reasonable person [would] believe that entry ... was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
-(United States v. Alaimalo (9th Cir, 2002) 313 F.3rd 1188, 1192-1193, quoting Bailey v. Newland (9th Cir. 2001) 263 F.3rd 1022, 1033; United States v. Brooks (9th Cir. 2004) 367 F.3rd 1128, 1133, fn. 5, & 1135.)

"We have defined ‘exigent circumstances' to include ‘an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property ....'
-(People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3rd 263, 276 ...)

The action must be ‘prompted by the motive of preserving life or property and [must] reasonably appear to the actor to be necessary for that purpose.'
-(People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2nd 374, 377 ...)" (People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Cal.3rd 91, 97.)

"‘[E]xigent circumstances' means an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence."
-(People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 465.)

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1324 Apr 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They OPENLY and BLATANTLY VIOLATED the Constitution on NATIONAL T.V.
I KNOW what my Constitution states. And NO rule-making, legislation, or court decisions can alter it. We The People are under no obligation to comply if they do. And, we have the inherent right of DESTROYING those that attempt it.
False.

See post above for the legal definition of "exigent circumstances."

Just declaring it unconstitutional over and over and over won't make it so.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1325 Apr 23, 2013
Marisa wrote:
Your problem is that you don't like women that get in your face
You have a lot of theories about me and what I like or don't like in women.

Why are you so obsessed with me? Do you fantasize about me at night when you are all alone?
Marisa

Fayetteville, PA

#1326 Apr 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a lot of theories about me and what I like or don't like in women.
Why are you so obsessed with me? Do you fantasize about me at night when you are all alone?
Yuck! Don't make me throw up! How could I possibly fantasize about you? I like men, not little sissy boys that are afraid of their own shadow.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1327 Apr 23, 2013
Marisa wrote:
<quoted text> Yuck! Don't make me throw up! How could I possibly fantasize about you? I like men, not little sissy boys that are afraid of their own shadow.
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#1328 Apr 24, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they do. It's called "exigent circumstances."
Here, educate yourself...
----------
Exigent Circumstances: The presence of exigent circumstances will excuse the lack of a warrant. "Exigent Circumstances" are present, as a general rule, whenever there is no reasonable opportunity for the police officers to stop and take the time to get a search warrant.
-(See United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 107 [13 L.Ed.2nd 684, 688].)
Rule: "[E]xigent circumstances are present when a reasonable person [would] believe that entry ... was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
-(United States v. Alaimalo (9th Cir, 2002) 313 F.3rd 1188, 1192-1193, quoting Bailey v. Newland (9th Cir. 2001) 263 F.3rd 1022, 1033; United States v. Brooks (9th Cir. 2004) 367 F.3rd 1128, 1133, fn. 5, & 1135.)
"We have defined ‘exigent circumstances' to include ‘an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property ....'
-(People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3rd 263, 276 ...)
The action must be ‘prompted by the motive of preserving life or property and [must] reasonably appear to the actor to be necessary for that purpose.'
-(People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2nd 374, 377 ...)" (People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Cal.3rd 91, 97.)
"‘[E]xigent circumstances' means an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence."
-(People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 465.)
What you have described is not a "right" it is a governmental "power" granted to law enforcement by the people and IS subject to be changed or revoked by the people. If the police keep abusing the powers granted to them, those powers can be changed or removed unlike a right which is inalienable. That was the point of the comment you replied to. A point you completely missed (no surprise there!).

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#1329 Apr 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
That's what Ted Bundy said right before the rape/murder. So, you're supporting rape, murder, and a disregard for the protests of women now. Good to know.
think about it

Fayetteville, PA

#1330 Apr 24, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pointing to the gun websites Dave mindlessly copies and pastes from.
Just proving that nothing he posts is an original thought or even results from original research.
Huh? Look who's talking, Dan te plagiarist. Gun gives credit at the end of the "quotes"he gives. You ought to try it sometime instead of trying to give credit to yoirself.
I believe you are trying to discredit Gun because it's all you have.What he posts destroys your position. So your next angle is to try and discredit him. It isn't working. Because what matters is the content of Gun's articles not where he gets them.
You don't like him using the Constitution either, which is strange too.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1331 Apr 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true!
He's very plainly stated that ALL anti-gun laws are patently unconstitutional. What don't YOU understand about 'Shall NOT be infringed?'
<quoted text>
WRONG ANSWER!
The police have no such right.
If anything, the ONLY thing which they possess is the POWER to conduct a search upon presentment of a search warrant, and at no other time, save for those instances where there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and where a life is immediately under threat.
Hell, I'm not even a U.S. citizen, and I know your law better than YOU!
Your right your not a US Citizen ,your just another trash talker who wants to tell USA citizens what to do while ignoring the open air prison you live in .

How many CCTV cameras cover the Queens land , subject ?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1332 Apr 24, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>Huh? Look who's talking, Dan te plagiarist. Gun gives credit at the end of the "quotes"he gives. You ought to try it sometime instead of trying to give credit to yoirself.
I believe you are trying to discredit Gun because it's all you have.What he posts destroys your position. So your next angle is to try and discredit him. It isn't working. Because what matters is the content of Gun's articles not where he gets them.
You don't like him using the Constitution either, which is strange too.
ALL he posts are quotes. He can't make a coherent, logical argument on his own - all he can do is mindlessly paste in quotes from the 18th and 19th centuries. It's the tactic of someone who is unable to engage in rational, reasoned debate. It's the crutch of the dimwitted.

Tell me - which of my positions has he "destroyed?" Hell, which of my positions has he even ADDRESSED?

None.

Because he can't.

Because all he can do is cut-n-paste.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1333 Apr 24, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>Huh? Look who's talking, Dan te plagiarist. Gun gives credit at the end of the "quotes"he gives. You ought to try it sometime instead of trying to give credit to yoirself.
I believe you are trying to discredit Gun because it's all you have.What he posts destroys your position. So your next angle is to try and discredit him. It isn't working. Because what matters is the content of Gun's articles not where he gets them.
You don't like him using the Constitution either, which is strange too.
But it was very gallant of you to rush to his aid. He needs all the help he can get. LOL!
Right Rights

Gardners, PA

#1334 Apr 24, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL he posts are quotes. He can't make a coherent, logical argument on his own - all he can do is mindlessly paste in quotes from the 18th and 19th centuries. It's the tactic of someone who is unable to engage in rational, reasoned debate. It's the crutch of the dimwitted.
Tell me - which of my positions has he "destroyed?" Hell, which of my positions has he even ADDRESSED?
None.
Because he can't.
Because all he can do is cut-n-paste.
Even worse - these kind of posters always have this presumptuous attitude that we are actually going to read 3 paragraphs or quotes - AND come to the same conclusion as them.

I just don't even bother - if someone can't write 75% original thought - get lost!

TaxNoMore, sorry bud, don't read a word you post. Its like scrolling past a banner ad.

Same for YouTube videos - sorry I dont get my political views from YouTube videos (obviously produced so the viewer will come to the desired conclusion)

Im happy if someone, in the midst of a debate, posts a supporting quote and a link.

But if you can't stake out a position on your own - and hold it - then stay in the kiddie pool!

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1335 Apr 24, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>That's what Ted Bundy said right before the rape/murder. So, you're supporting rape, murder, and a disregard for the protests of women now. Good to know.
You've memorized what Ted Bundy says?

Look, I like "Married With Children" as much as the next guy, but I think you should be spending your time on something else.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1336 Apr 24, 2013
Right Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Even worse - these kind of posters always have this presumptuous attitude that we are actually going to read 3 paragraphs or quotes - AND come to the same conclusion as them.
I just don't even bother - if someone can't write 75% original thought - get lost!
TaxNoMore, sorry bud, don't read a word you post. Its like scrolling past a banner ad.
Same for YouTube videos - sorry I dont get my political views from YouTube videos (obviously produced so the viewer will come to the desired conclusion)
Im happy if someone, in the midst of a debate, posts a supporting quote and a link.
But if you can't stake out a position on your own - and hold it - then stay in the kiddie pool!
Here's my exception on youtube videos. If the person posts a description of what the video is and why they want you to see it.

And if it is short.

Naked links to videos is not going to happen
think about it

Fayetteville, PA

#1337 Apr 24, 2013
Right Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Even worse - these kind of posters always have this presumptuous attitude that we are actually going to read 3 paragraphs or quotes - AND come to the same conclusion as them.
I just don't even bother - if someone can't write 75% original thought - get lost!
TaxNoMore, sorry bud, don't read a word you post. Its like scrolling past a banner ad.
Same for YouTube videos - sorry I dont get my political views from YouTube videos (obviously produced so the viewer will come to the desired conclusion)
Im happy if someone, in the midst of a debate, posts a supporting quote and a link.
But if you can't stake out a position on your own - and hold it - then stay in the kiddie pool!
This is what Dan the man would call the white flag of surrender.
While we're on the subject....you don't seem to have a thought of your own either. It's like Dan said just a few minutes ago to another poster.."But it was very gallant of you to rush to his aid. He needs all the help he can get." LOL

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#1338 Apr 24, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You've memorized what Ted Bundy says?
Look, I like "Married With Children" as much as the next guy, but I think you should be spending your time on something else.
Don't try to deflect attention from the fact that you said you supported rape, murder, and a disregard for the protests of women.
Bobby6464 From Denver CO

Clearfield, PA

#1339 Apr 24, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL he posts are quotes. He can't make a coherent, logical argument on his own - all he can do is mindlessly paste in quotes from the 18th and 19th centuries. It's the tactic of someone who is unable to engage in rational, reasoned debate. It's the crutch of the dimwitted.
Tell me - which of my positions has he "destroyed?" Hell, which of my positions has he even ADDRESSED?
None.
Because he can't.
Because all he can do is cut-n-paste.
POT KETTLE BLACK
Bobby6464 From Denver CO

Clearfield, PA

#1340 Apr 24, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL he posts are quotes. He can't make a coherent, logical argument on his own - all he can do is mindlessly paste in quotes from the 18th and 19th centuries. It's the tactic of someone who is unable to engage in rational, reasoned debate. It's the crutch of the dimwitted.
Tell me - which of my positions has he "destroyed?" Hell, which of my positions has he even ADDRESSED?
None.
Because he can't.
Because all he can do is cut-n-paste.
But it was very gallant of you to rush to his aid. He needs all the help he can get. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1341 Apr 24, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>This is what Dan the man would call the white flag of surrender.
While we're on the subject....you don't seem to have a thought of your own either. It's like Dan said just a few minutes ago to another poster.."But it was very gallant of you to rush to his aid. He needs all the help he can get." LOL
He wasn't rushing to my aid. He was REPLYING to me.

See, that's what we do here. Somebody says something then somebody responds to that.

That's an entirely different thing than jumping in to say how smart another poster is to the guy who's criticizing him.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#1342 Apr 24, 2013
Bobby6464 From Denver CO wrote:
<quoted text> POT KETTLE BLACK
Bobby6464 From Denver CO wrote:
<quoted text>But it was very gallant of you to rush to his aid. He needs all the help he can get. LOL!
Oh look - Roger the Racist Dipshit has two cents to contribute.

LOL! And these posts are just as valuable as all the rest of the drool that drips from his festering gob.

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) 49 min Independent1 12,096
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot 4 hr Donny Brook 6
Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Ex-Hu... Dec 13 Here Is One 3
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Dec 11 Vern5554566 4
Deer Hunting Time Dec 9 kurtcooksalot16 1
Bill would stiffen background checks Dec 8 Independent1 3
SAFE Act PROTEST draws crowd in Lewis County (Jun '13) Dec 7 lowville resident 4
More from around the web