Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10987 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.

“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.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2034 May 1, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
There was much debate on the writing and meaning of the second amendment. What you are offering is one point of view. There were others who felt strongly about the "well regulated militia" caveat.

From a broader perspective, the second amendment was written at a time when there was some reason to fear an assault from the federal government on its own people. Only a relative few fringe crazies believe that is true today.

Is THAT clear enough for YOU?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2035 May 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>There was much debate on the writing and meaning of the second amendment. What you are offering is one point of view. There were others who felt strongly about the "well regulated militia" caveat.
From a broader perspective, the second amendment was written at a time when there was some reason to fear an assault from the federal government on its own people. Only a relative few fringe crazies believe that is true today.
Is THAT clear enough for YOU?
Yeah, like the "crazies" at Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc., right?

You obviously are very sheltered, or willfully blind. Here, WAKE UP:

Abuses and Usurpations
http://constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm

Detailed, verified accounts of government abuses by a non-partisan Constitutional scholar.

Or, how about THIS "crazy" -

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

- Judge Alex Kozinski,[Silviera v. Lockyer, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003.]

Or, how about THIS former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey?-

NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer
The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thursday, January 10, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/...

Perhaps you would be able to see more clearly if you weren't governed by fear of your fellow citizens exercising their Constitutionally SECURED Right. You do realize that you are being governed by cowardice, right? Just because you have an inordinate fear of having to defend yourself. Does not give you the right to have your fellow citizens stripped of that right.

Wouldn't it be better if you stood up on your own two feet, and grew a pair? Rather than crying to papa gov. to destroy the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of your fellow citizens? Spit that pacifier out of your mouth, and become a REAL American man.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#2036 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, when an "assault weapon" was a musket.
Indeed it was.

You need to familiarizer yourself with British military tactics.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2037 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I think that is a matter of perspective. From my perspective there seems to be a much greater number of leftist extremists. I've been called an extremist because I defend and support the 2nd amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. In any case, extremists at either end of the spectrum are a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2038 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, when an "assault weapon" was a musket.
I really hate that particular excuse for wanting to disarm the American people. It's not rocket science. When the 2nd amendment was written we had muskets. The bad guys had muskets too. Now you wish to restrict Americans to muskets only (figuratively speaking) while the bad guys have state of the art weapons. That defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment.

think about it

Chambersburg, PA

#2039 May 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I really hate that particular excuse for wanting to disarm the American people. It's not rocket science. When the 2nd amendment was written we had muskets. The bad guys had muskets too. Now you wish to restrict Americans to muskets only (figuratively speaking) while the bad guys have state of the art weapons. That defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment.
That pretty much sums it up. If they don't get your explanation, they just don't get it and never will, either out of ignorance or stubborness.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2040 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like the "crazies" at Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc., right?
You obviously are very sheltered, or willfully blind. Here, WAKE UP:
Abuses and Usurpations
http://constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm
Detailed, verified accounts of government abuses by a non-partisan Constitutional scholar.
Or, how about THIS "crazy" -
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
- Judge Alex Kozinski,[Silviera v. Lockyer, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003.]
Or, how about THIS former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey?-
NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer
The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Thursday, January 10, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/...
Perhaps you would be able to see more clearly if you weren't governed by fear of your fellow citizens exercising their Constitutionally SECURED Right. You do realize that you are being governed by cowardice, right? Just because you have an inordinate fear of having to defend yourself. Does not give you the right to have your fellow citizens stripped of that right.
Wouldn't it be better if you stood up on your own two feet, and grew a pair? Rather than crying to papa gov. to destroy the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of your fellow citizens? Spit that pacifier out of your mouth, and become a REAL American man.
The gun-grabbers don't seem to understand that the 2nd amendment is there to insure all of our other rights and freedoms. Abrogating or restricting the 2nd amendment is like driving without insurance, no problem 'til there's an accident. People who believe in gun control will not realize the importance of the 2nd amendment until it's too late. Then they will look to those who they once ridiculed as "gun nuts" for protection. Complacency is freedoms most dangerous enemy.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2041 May 2, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>That pretty much sums it up. If they don't get your explanation, they just don't get it and never will, either out of ignorance or stubborness.
That's what sociologists and anthropologists call "willful blindness". They turn a blind eye to the dark side of something in favor of seeing only the utopian promise of improvement.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2042 May 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed the operation was overseen by Eric Holder. I posted three separate investigations that found that no high-ranking appointees to the DOJ had anything to do with F&F and specifically cleared Holder of knowledge or involvement. Issa himself said he didn't believe Holder or the President knew of the operation.
So I HAVE proven you wrong.
No you have not. The captain is in charge of his ship. It was Holder's rank and file that dropped the ball, and we don't know what he knew or when he knew it because Obama sealed all the communications regarding F&F with his executive priviledge bullshit. If he truly knew nothing about it, why would he need to be protected by Obama???

Try again.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2043 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.
Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”
The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control.“It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement.“Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
How can they make a judgement on ANYTHING, when they don't have the ACTUAL FACTS in front of them?
Spot on!!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2044 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The Founders would be calling for another Revolution if they could come into out time. And what makes you think the Founders would call for ANY firearms to be banned? They already put into words their thoughts on the govt control of arms. Does the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ring a bell???
FormerParatroope r

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#2045 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>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.
They wrote the Constitution as a product of not only thier time, but as human history up to the time. This is why the Constitution restricts government and does not enable it. If they were alive today and writing the Constitution, the left, and many on the right would be furious at the limits placed on government.

I don't think they would be much different on the 2A. They believed in personal responsibility as evident by the power they gave the People and the responsibility of insuring that the Country prospered. We are failing, not because of our rights, because we have empowered government beyond its Constitutional authority.

In the light of why they wrote what they did, I do believe the gun control crowd would be appalled at what the Founders may include as bearable weapons. Auto weapons would be bearable, used by the Government, therefore usable by the People.

I wonder what they would they would think of us today, fearing our own citizens, blaming objects for the actions of criminals, and a lax system that encourages criminals with a lack of consistent enforcement.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2046 May 2, 2013
Shy, this thread has become an old fashioned REVIVAL MEETING!

The pro-gun crowd doesn't have a political philosophy - they have a fundamentalist religion.

They have fetishized the 2nd Amendment to the point that it is an idol they worship with all the fervor of any fundamentalist religious sect.

They have an 11 word religious dogma they interpret literally - "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - and they preach that dogma with as much fiery, spittle-flecked vengeance and passion as any tent preacher.

There is simply no reasoning with them. When anyone DARES to disagree on any aspect of their fundamentalist dogma, the wrath of God falls on them and they are condemned as traitorous, un-American heretics.

Real-world facts and objective reality have no bearing.

There isn't any room for rational discussion.

If you don't unconditionally accept their narrow, fanatical definition of "gun rights" you will be shouted into submission.

But the rest of the world continues to move on. Rational gun restrictions have been and will continue to be enacted. Reasonable, rational people continue to have reasoned, rational discussions of how to protect innocents from the extremism of the pro-gun cult.

They rage against history, but they are on its losing side. In the end, they will be marginalized by civil society just like every other fanatical religious cult in our nation's history.

So rage on, gun-nuts. Rage on. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2047 May 2, 2013
Why, this thread has become an old fashioned REVIVAL MEETING!
Yes

Huntsville, AL

#2048 May 2, 2013
think about it wrote:
<quoted text>That pretty much sums it up. If they don't get your explanation, they just don't get it and never will, either out of ignorance or stubborness.
closing the loophole and checking to see that those who are crazy or a criminal don't get to buy arsenals easily is designed to disarm you. LOL

It is called common sense - which is what the gun nuts lack.
the

Huntsville, AL

#2049 May 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founders would be calling for another Revolution if they could come into out time. And what makes you think the Founders would call for ANY firearms to be banned? They already put into words their thoughts on the govt control of arms. Does the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ring a bell???
founders were the liberal educated elite of the day. They would be appalled at how you idiots are using their words and at the idea of firepower in the hands of lunatics that you defend. They would say, yes we have a standing army and a state militia and food is procured differently now. They would be on the right side of this and would lead the revolution against the idea of corporations as citizens and corporate corruption of our institutions.
A well

Huntsville, AL

#2050 May 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founders would be calling for another Revolution if they could come into out time. And what makes you think the Founders would call for ANY firearms to be banned? They already put into words their thoughts on the govt control of arms. Does the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ring a bell???
regulated militia!!!!

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#2053 May 2, 2013
the wrote:
<quoted text>
founders were the liberal educated elite of the day. They would be appalled at how you idiots are using their words and at the idea of firepower in the hands of lunatics that you defend. They would say, yes we have a standing army and a state militia and food is procured differently now. They would be on the right side of this and would lead the revolution against the idea of corporations as citizens and corporate corruption of our institutions.
Give it up.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2054 May 2, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
WR ended two years prior to F&F, and was halted after the cartels .
Obama is just as responsible for F&F as George Bush was for WR.

And Obama won the election in 2008 and won again in 2012, no matter how hard you try to make a connection were none exists.

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 Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban 41 min huntcoyotes 198
News American Outdoor Brands Corp: Time to Move On? 55 min payme 11
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) 2 hr Sentry Watch 120
News Official Heckler And Koch 22Lr Replica Rifles (Jan '10) Mon okimar 5
News 'How many more tragedies' asks mayor, after 11-... Mon payme 1
News 'Veteran Second Amendment Act' under fire right... Mar 19 FormerParatrooper 7
News Artists Armed With Spray-Paint Cans Take Aim At... Mar 17 Get Out 2
More from around the web