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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2014 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I'm a Democrat from birth, so it's hard to tell.
But let me ask you something. Have you combed your face today? Remember, the Flintstones are coming over.
The fact that you are lame has already been established. There is no need for further evidence. As the sentence has already been handed down.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2015 May 1, 2013
Nope wrote:
<quoted text>
it is the purpose of the amendment. I suppose we should ignore the particular anachronistic context of the third amendment as well.
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

Sprechen Sie Englisch?
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2016 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Since you appear devoid of a sense of humor, I gather you're a teaslurper.
Telling two posters, that you disagree with to blow their brains out is not humor.
What you did was put your true thoughts down before you thought about it.
And why is that when someone questions you, your respnse is I must be a teaslurper? I suspect you are devoid of an intelligent response, so the teaslurper remark comes in because that's all you know......
By a

Huntsville, AL

#2017 May 1, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at.
politically inspired conspiracy nut who doesn't have a brain.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2018 May 1, 2013
What's with all the evil remarks from the libs directed at GunShow1.

Do you suppose it's an indicator that they have nothing else? It's a sign of frustration because they know they are not making any ground with...

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2019 May 1, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>Telling two posters, that you disagree with to blow their brains out is not humor.
What you did was put your true thoughts down before you thought about it.
And why is that when someone questions you, your respnse is I must be a teaslurper? I suspect you are devoid of an intelligent response, so the teaslurper remark comes in because that's all you know......
I addressed my "teaslurper" remark specifically to you. I told you a million times not to exaggerate.

The reason why I referred to you as I did is that, in my opinion, only someone on the rabid right would fail to get the joke. Though at times it might be tempting, I don't literally wish death on any Topix poster, not even you.

Incidentally, since you're so opposed to extreme violence, I recommend you examine some of the posters on Topix threatening death to the president, to Black and Mexican people, to gays, etc. If you condemn them too, I'll at least give you credit for consistency.
Nope

Huntsville, AL

#2020 May 1, 2013
think about it wrote:
.
you haven't noticed 100 spams in the last 24 hours

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2021 May 1, 2013
think about it wrote:
What's with all the evil remarks from the libs directed at GunShow1.
Do you suppose it's an indicator that they have nothing else? It's a sign of frustration because they know they are not making any ground with...
If thinking about it produces your conclusion, it's not worth the trouble.

GunShow1 deserves the remarks mainly bbecause of his second amendment bullshit. If the writers of that amendment could envision what constitutes firearms today, I assure you they would have written it very differently, and a lot more clearly.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2022 May 1, 2013
By a wrote:
<quoted text>
politically inspired conspiracy nut who doesn't have a brain.
I agree, that describes you perfectly.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2023 May 1, 2013
think about it wrote:
What's with all the evil remarks from the libs directed at GunShow1.
Do you suppose it's an indicator that they have nothing else? It's a sign of frustration because they know they are not making any ground with...
PRECISELY. They can't argue with the FACTS. So their panties are all in a wad.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2024 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I addressed my "teaslurper" remark specifically to you. I told you a million times not to exaggerate.
The reason why I referred to you as I did is that, in my opinion, only someone on the rabid right would fail to get the joke. Though at times it might be tempting, I don't literally wish death on any Topix poster, not even you.
Incidentally, since you're so opposed to extreme violence, I recommend you examine some of the posters on Topix threatening death to the president, to Black and Mexican people, to gays, etc. If you condemn them too, I'll at least give you credit for consistency.
You should not assume you know me...you do not. I have already condemned posters on BOTH sides for promoting violence and death. You seem to be selective as to who you condemn.

Your "opinion" is that only someone on the rabid right would not get the joke. That is subjective and judgemental.
Is that the kind of giving that brings you happiness?
FormerParatroope r

Toledo, OH

#2025 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If thinking about it produces your conclusion, it's not worth the trouble.
GunShow1 deserves the remarks mainly bbecause of his second amendment bullshit. If the writers of that amendment could envision what constitutes firearms today, I assure you they would have written it very differently, and a lot more clearly.
So your saying that men of science, firearm makers, soldiers, inventors and philosophers would have no idea that firearms would advance to what we have? In a time where a multi barrel flintlock muskets were experimented with, no one could envision a machinegun, much less a semiautomatic rifle being developed? Even submarines were being experimented with.

The Constitution was written in the common language of the time. There are numerous writings of the time that still are very clear in the intent of the Founders.
think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2026 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If thinking about it produces your conclusion, it's not worth the trouble.
GunShow1 deserves the remarks mainly bbecause of his second amendment bullshit. If the writers of that amendment could envision what constitutes firearms today, I assure you they would have written it very differently, and a lot more clearly.
So you know for 100% that the writers of the amendment would want today?You don't know that for a fact so don't pretend that you do.. All you are doing is assuming and it's an opinion of yours....that's all it is.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#2027 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If thinking about it produces your conclusion, it's not worth the trouble.
GunShow1 deserves the remarks mainly bbecause of his second amendment bullshit. If the writers of that amendment could envision what constitutes firearms today, I assure you they would have written it very differently, and a lot more clearly.
Why?

They had the best firearms of the day ,far from Roman archers.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2028 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If thinking about it produces your conclusion, it's not worth the trouble.
GunShow1 deserves the remarks mainly bbecause of his second amendment bullshit. If the writers of that amendment could envision what constitutes firearms today, I assure you they would have written it very differently, and a lot more clearly.
Here you go, O' brainless one:

"If we destroyed that which had been done, we should destroy the volunteer system; because by taking away their arms, we destroy also the martial spirit which they were sure to engender. It was true, as had been said, that the States were so jealous of the preservation of this martial spirit, that after they had adopted the Constitution of the United States, as it now stood, they not satisfied until they had secured an amendment which provided "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If we destroyed the militia system, we did not indeed take away of the right the people to bear arms, but we destroyed the inclination, the habit of wearing arms; and such was not his sentiment as to what ought to be condition of things in a country like ours. He believed that not only right, but the habit of wearing arms was essential to freemen, and to preservation of the liberty of freemen. This was the principle asserted the Constitution of the United States; and if we did away with this, the effect would be to destroy the principle and the feeling together."--Mr Scott, Oct. 23, 1837, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONVENTION Or THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, To PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2, 1837. VOL. IV.(Page 100)]

Is THAT clear enough for you?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2029 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If thinking about it produces your conclusion, it's not worth the trouble.
GunShow1 deserves the remarks mainly bbecause of his second amendment bullshit. If the writers of that amendment could envision what constitutes firearms today, I assure you they would have written it very differently, and a lot more clearly.
Here's some more CLARITY:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT of the soldier, are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American .... The UNLIMITED power of the sword is NOT in the hands of EITHER the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the HANDS OF THE PEOPLE."--Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 1788.(Mr. Coxe was a leading proponent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He was appointed revenue commissioner by President George Washington on June 30, 1792).

"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).

How's THAT for "clarity"?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2030 May 1, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>You should not assume you know me...you do not. I have already condemned posters on BOTH sides for promoting violence and death. You seem to be selective as to who you condemn.
Your "opinion" is that only someone on the rabid right would not get the joke. That is subjective and judgemental.
Is that the kind of giving that brings you happiness?
I'll ignore your last sarcastic sentence. As for judging the far right to be humorless, that is based on experience. I will agree however, that extremists on either end tend to be rabid. It's just that, at least in today's America, the ones on the right are far greater in number.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2031 May 1, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
So your saying that men of science, firearm makers, soldiers, inventors and philosophers would have no idea that firearms would advance to what we have? In a time where a multi barrel flintlock muskets were experimented with, no one could envision a machinegun, much less a semiautomatic rifle being developed? Even submarines were being experimented with.
The Constitution was written in the common language of the time. There are numerous writings of the time that still are very clear in the intent of the Founders.
I'll try to be more clear. I am saying that even the best minds of the time would not have come up with today's armamentarium in their wildest imaginations. I am also saying that the second amendment, as written, was most certainly a product of its time, and would be drastically altered by the same writers if they were alive today.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2032 May 1, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>So you know for 100% that the writers of the amendment would want today?You don't know that for a fact so don't pretend that you do.. All you are doing is assuming and it's an opinion of yours....that's all it is.
None of us knows much at a 100% level. I'm basing my opinion on what I believe is good common sense. Not only do I believe that, if written today, the second amendment would read far differently, but that assault weapons for civilian use would be among the first firearms to be banned.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2033 May 1, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
They had the best firearms of the day ,far from Roman archers.
Sure, when an "assault weapon" was a musket.

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 OK County acting sheriff: Let's keep working to... Sat stateofmorons 2
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) May 18 The Insider 70
News Joe The Plumber Stands By Shocking Holocaust Ch... (Jun '12) May 15 swedenforever 10
News Dem senator won't back concealed carry push May 15 Ridgeway Boy 5
News "Open carry" bill shot down May 14 lifeisshort 72
News Concealed Carry on Campus: Why I Resigned From ... May 14 Say What 4
News Boom! Concealed Carrier Stops a Massacre Be Cra... May 14 jimwildrickjr 2
More from around the web