Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion

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.

Comments
1 - 20 of 11,003 Comments Last updated Apr 3, 2014
First Prev
of 551
Next Last
Come with your gun

Greencastle, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Time to stand up for freedom, and RKBA!
Sassee

Landisburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

13

10

8

Yes children bring your toys to the square of Chambersburg. Good ole cumberland valley Dumbasses!
Jorge

Marysville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

It will feel good to angrily gather to denounce proposed federal gun laws and support local lawmakers who want to nullify them.

Unfortunately, after the rally when everyone goes home feeling satisfied with their public display of defiance, the fact will remain that states can't nullify federal laws.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

8

I'm literally imagining the square being filled with Yosemite Sam's during this event.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Jorge wrote:
It will feel good to angrily gather to denounce proposed federal gun laws and support local lawmakers who want to nullify them.
Unfortunately, after the rally when everyone goes home feeling satisfied with their public display of defiance, the fact will remain that states can't nullify federal laws.
Seriously. What about "nullification is unconstitutional" does the right in this country not understand?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

2

How much do you want to bet that there's at least one accidental discharge during this event?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Nuggin wrote:
How much do you want to bet that there's at least one accidental discharge during this event?
I'd bet there will be several, but it probably won't be a firearm.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd bet there will be several, but it probably won't be a firearm.
LOL!

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Well, ya know, people get excited about their guns.
Right Rights

Gardners, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I heard one of the local biker clubs is sponsoring an "Open Carry" ride.

I guess the idea is, you put on your "biker" costume - and grab your gun, and hop on your bike and follow a bunch of other guys around.

Maybe they'll all ride to the rally!

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

What is wrong with showing support for the Constitution?

I'm confused, I don't understand why anyone would be upset with a display of allegiance to one of the founding documents of this nation.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

GenPatton wrote:
What is wrong with showing support for the Constitution?
I'm confused, I don't understand why anyone would be upset with a display of allegiance to one of the founding documents of this nation.
Support for nullifying federal law isn't support for the Constitution since it is unconstitutional.

This gathering is a display of allegiance to a particular INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, not allegiance to the Constitution itself. It's an allegiance to a fetishized version of the 2nd Amendment where any regulation is interpreted as a violation and where people who support reasonable regulation are demonized.

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

That is you reading, not everyone agrees with it.

Is the Constitution a living document?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

GenPatton wrote:
That is you reading, not everyone agrees with it.
Is the Constitution a living document?
What is my reading? That nullification is unconstitutional? I don't think so.

Or that any regulation of guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Again - no.

I'm describing established legal precedent, not my opinion. I realize not everyone agrees with the established legal precedent, but that doesn't make me (or it) wrong.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

GenPatton wrote:
That is you reading, not everyone agrees with it.
Is the Constitution a living document?
The right to own any gun you want is not promised by the Constitution.

In fact, one can argue that only people who belong to "well regulated militias" should be allowed to own guns.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to own any gun you want is not promised by the Constitution.
In fact, one can argue that only people who belong to "well regulated militias" should be allowed to own guns.
Exactly right. Reasonable regulation is not a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights. That's been established by the Supreme Court.

Even the most extreme activist rightwing justice in America knows it - Scalia says,“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”

"Of course, properly understood,[the Second Amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states."
- Antonin Scalia in “A Matter of Interpretation”

"[The Second Amendment] is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
- Scalia on Fox "news" last year
Nerd Rage

Fayetteville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Scalia Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under Second Amendment

Scalia’s across-the-board defense of weapon-carrying laws is not new, having been at the heart of his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which protected an individual’s right to possess firearms. However, his nonchalant suggestion that private citizens could legally carry rocket launchers so long as they’re “hand-held” suggests just how willing he is to protect an armed nation.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/6...

Because shoulder-fired rockets don’t shoot down airplanes (reprise)

Scalia believes the test is your right to own a weapon depends on your ability to carry it — to “bear” it, in other words. There’s no room here for consideration of a weapon’s lethality, dangerousness, or complexity

http://left.mn/2012/12/because-shoulder-fired...

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Nerd Rage wrote:
Scalia Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under Second Amendment
Scalia’s across-the-board defense of weapon-carrying laws is not new, having been at the heart of his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which protected an individual’s right to possess firearms. However, his nonchalant suggestion that private citizens could legally carry rocket launchers so long as they’re “hand-held” suggests just how willing he is to protect an armed nation.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/6...
Because shoulder-fired rockets don’t shoot down airplanes (reprise)
Scalia believes the test is your right to own a weapon depends on your ability to carry it — to “bear” it, in other words. There’s no room here for consideration of a weapon’s lethality, dangerousness, or complexity
http://left.mn/2012/12/because-shoulder-fired...
LOL! He's all over the map, isn't he?

Point taken - Scalia is too erratic and unreliable to be considered a reliable authority. We should just stick with established case law.

And established case law is clear that limiting the arms that civilians can possess does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
Just Popn In

Racine, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

As a conservative, I actually see the point...from both sides.

The Second Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms". It is a given right to all law abiding citizens of the United States of America to do so. The Federal Government can’t restrict/take this right from those that lawfully want to "bear arms". Once you start to take these rights away, little by little, it is a slippery slope that could lead to even further restrictions in the future. Taking knee-jerk reactions to jump into changes for the sake of changes can be very dangerous. One of the reasons this was written into the Constitution was for it to be a way to keep government in check.

Now, the Federal Government is looking to limit that right based on how our society/citizens are using/abusing it. What I mean is, we have shown as a society that maybe we can’t handle this right at its face value, as it was written in the Constitution. Too many people are misusing their weapons at the expense of other people/victims. We are some 226 years from the signing of the constitution; which was written in a time of muskets, long rifles, and inaccurate hand guns that you needed to be within 20 feet of the target to even have a chance of hitting it.

There are plenty of laws/regulations already in place that are not enforced. Why not start from there? Those that are outraged by the possibility of more limits being put in place should focus on working with the Federal Government to find some common ground and start from there. As a member of the NRA, I can honestly say I don’t agree with how they have approached this.

On the other hand, I think the Federal Government should be more open to listening to gun rights advocates instead of poking them in the eye all the time and saying things like,“you have blood on your hands if…”. If someone continued to poke me in the eye, I would poke back…and it may not always be in a good way.

Just my opinion...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Why can't we have a beer rally downtown?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 551
Next Last

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.

•••