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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2078 May 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Indeed. It is the forerunner of the death of freedom and liberty.

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”
&#8213; Daniel Webster

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2079 May 2, 2013
To the above judge-it graffiti artist(s): Negative icons do not constitute intelligent rebuttals.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2080 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Did you hear the bell signaling a "well regulated militia"?
Your first sentence suggests you believe we're under attack. By whom?
"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).]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2081 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Did you hear the bell signaling a "well regulated militia"?
Your first sentence suggests you believe we're under attack. By whom?
If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and "werewolves" could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against "unreasonable" searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."-- MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, U.S. Supreme Court,[JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). Decided June 5, 1950. Page 339 U.S. 763, 784]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2082 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Universal background checks would at least reduce the number of state-of-the-art weapons available to "the bad guys". And lifetime imprisonment for the exchange or sales of these weapons would also make them less available.
I believe your interpretation of the second amendment would allow individual ownership of nuclear bombs. Where is the cutoff point?
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
jumpin jack flash

Chambersburg, PA

#2083 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
To the above judge-it graffiti artist(s): Negative icons do not constitute intelligent rebuttals.
Wa Wa Wa Wa said the crybaby! Wa Wa Wa said the crybaby!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2084 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Just a few points:
- If the students at Kent State had been armed, they would all have been killed.
- What Judge Kozinski describes cannot happen in our form of government. Even if it did, the military would wipe out the opposition. They wouldn't need to disarm us in order to slaughter us.
- Napolitano's comment is glib and merits no serious response.
- If I want superficial psychological advice, I'll call Dr. Phil. I'm more than satisfied with the size of my balls, and my own inner strengths. As I see it, the perceived threat of attack by our federal government is a function of unreasonable fear, bordering on paranoia. Eschewing personal weapons is a sign of strength, not cowardice. As Americans, we should trust in our freedoms, not our firearms.
- Once again I have to hear a defense of the second amendment that glosses over the phrase, "well regulated militia". To me that means a group of people who are armed, disciplined, and supervised. It does not mean some gun totin' nutcase who thinks he's a "militia".
Since you'll probably cite the Supreme Court decision, I believe they got it wrong.
The military is drawn from We The People. There are generals which
have publicly stated they will NOT carry out UNCONSTITUTIONAL orders.

And then there is Oath Keepers:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Now 340 sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control
Laws are 'feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable'
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/sheriff-i-refuse-t...

And the list is growing longer.

You treasonous freaks are FINISHED here in America. Your 'master' can't do SQUAT. Because there' no one to carry out his perverse dictates.

Push us hard enough freaks, and we will soon start PUSHING BACK.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2085 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"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).]
Why do you keep posting these repetitious quotes? There is nothing new in your latest one. In fact, it seems to make my point about the meaning of "well regulated militia".

Also, I am not intimidated by quotes. These are by human beings who, by definition, are fallible creatures, just like you and me. If you like, I'll put my statements in italics. They'll look more impressive that way.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2086 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and "werewolves" could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against "unreasonable" searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."-- MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, U.S. Supreme Court,[JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). Decided June 5, 1950. Page 339 U.S. 763, 784]
If you want to put me to sleep, keep them quotes acomin'.
HELLO! There is no military occupation in this country. When there is, I'll join forces with you.
more

Huntsville, AL

#2087 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The military is drawn from We The People. There are generals which
have publicly stated they will NOT carry out UNCONSTITUTIONAL orders.
And then there is Oath Keepers:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Now 340 sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control
Laws are 'feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable'
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/sheriff-i-refuse-t...
And the list is growing longer.
You treasonous freaks are FINISHED here in America. Your 'master' can't do SQUAT. Because there' no one to carry out his perverse dictates.
Push us hard enough freaks, and we will soon start PUSHING BACK.
violent threats from an anti-American anarchist. I can see why the mental health background check has got you worried. Maybe the terrorist watch as well.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2088 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The military is drawn from We The People. There are generals which
have publicly stated they will NOT carry out UNCONSTITUTIONAL orders.
And then there is Oath Keepers:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Now 340 sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control
Laws are 'feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable'
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/sheriff-i-refuse-t...
And the list is growing longer.
You treasonous freaks are FINISHED here in America. Your 'master' can't do SQUAT. Because there' no one to carry out his perverse dictates.
Push us hard enough freaks, and we will soon start PUSHING BACK.
When you have to resort to personal insults, you are conceding the argument. This is as good a time as any to tell you to screw off.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2089 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Just a few points:
- If the students at Kent State had been armed, they would all have been killed.
- What Judge Kozinski describes cannot happen in our form of government. Even if it did, the military would wipe out the opposition. They wouldn't need to disarm us in order to slaughter us.
- Napolitano's comment is glib and merits no serious response.
- If I want superficial psychological advice, I'll call Dr. Phil. I'm more than satisfied with the size of my balls, and my own inner strengths. As I see it, the perceived threat of attack by our federal government is a function of unreasonable fear, bordering on paranoia. Eschewing personal weapons is a sign of strength, not cowardice. As Americans, we should trust in our freedoms, not our firearms.
- Once again I have to hear a defense of the second amendment that glosses over the phrase, "well regulated militia". To me that means a group of people who are armed, disciplined, and supervised. It does not mean some gun totin' nutcase who thinks he's a "militia".
Since you'll probably cite the Supreme Court decision, I believe they got it wrong.
A few more 'points'-

How well did the S.S. do against a few poorly armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto?

How well did the nazi's do against the Russian peasants?

How well did we do against the V.C. in Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq?

50% or more will turn and fight ALONG SIDE We The People. And when we do - we will TOTALLY ANNIHILATE the CAUSE of our woes - YOU FREAKS.

The Right to Keep and Bear arms PREEXISTED the Constitution. It is a RESERVED Natural INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, one that is INALIENABLE.

And yes, the Supreme Court DID get it wrong. For they entirely IGNORED; "Shall NOT be infringed".

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2090 May 2, 2013
more wrote:
<quoted text>
violent threats from an anti-American anarchist. I can see why the mental health background check has got you worried. Maybe the terrorist watch as well.
Shove off, traitor.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2091 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text> When you have to resort to personal insults, you are conceding the argument. This is as good a time as any to tell you to screw off.
"Insults", traitor? YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#2092 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Universal background checks would at least reduce the number of state-of-the-art weapons available to "the bad guys". And lifetime imprisonment for the exchange or sales of these weapons would also make them less available.
I believe your interpretation of the second amendment would allow individual ownership of nuclear bombs. Where is the cutoff point?
No it wouldn't. The bad guys don't obtain their weapons legally now. How will you impose background checks on those who steal weapons? How will you impose background checks on the black market? Do you really think criminals/crazies go to the local gun shop to get their weapons?????? If you have the money you can get any weapon you like in a heartbeat if you're not worried about being legal. Plain and simple. Background checks are nothing but an unnecessary inconvenience to the law abiding citizen and an opportunity for government to unconstitutionally abuse its power.
jumpin jack flash

Chambersburg, PA

#2093 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you keep posting these repetitious quotes? There is nothing new in your latest one. In fact, it seems to make my point about the meaning of "well regulated militia".
Also, I am not intimidated by quotes. These are by human beings who, by definition, are fallible creatures, just like you and me. If you like, I'll put my statements in italics. They'll look more impressive that way.
Now the crybaby thinks he can put himself in the same league as Supreme Court Justices, the Founding Fathers, Notable Attorneys, etc. And all the crybaby thinks he has to do to achieve this is to put his statements in quotes!

Now that's a good one. Too bad there isn't an award for making the most stupid remark on topix, because you would get it!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2094 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Insults", traitor? YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET.
LOL! This should be good.

Being the chickenshit coward you are, I'm sure you won't do shit.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2095 May 2, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A few more 'points'-
How well did the S.S. do against a few poorly armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto?
How well did the nazi's do against the Russian peasants?
How well did we do against the V.C. in Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq?
50% or more will turn and fight ALONG SIDE We The People. And when we do - we will TOTALLY ANNIHILATE the CAUSE of our woes - YOU FREAKS.
The Right to Keep and Bear arms PREEXISTED the Constitution. It is a RESERVED Natural INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, one that is INALIENABLE.
And yes, the Supreme Court DID get it wrong. For they entirely IGNORED; "Shall NOT be infringed".
No wonder you're against background checks. You'd never pass.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2096 May 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Did you hear the bell signaling a "well regulated militia"?
Your first sentence suggests you believe we're under attack. By whom?
1. Soapbox
2. Ballot Box
3. Jury Box
4. Cartridge Box

We are not quite to #4.....yet.

Our rights (especially our 2nd-A rights) are constantly under attack from our over-reaching government. Weapons bans, licensing requirements, restrictions by executive orders (*SPIT*), purchase permit requirements, restrictions on what accessories or mods can made to a gun, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2097 May 2, 2013
jumpin jack flash wrote:
<quoted text>Now the crybaby thinks he can put himself in the same league as Supreme Court Justices, the Founding Fathers, Notable Attorneys, etc. And all the crybaby thinks he has to do to achieve this is to put his statements in quotes!
Now that's a good one. Too bad there isn't an award for making the most stupid remark on topix, because you would get it!
Too late. You were just declared the winner.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Post-debate poll: Clinton takes round one 2 min Go Blue Forever 273
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min FYVM 1,433,301
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 209,953
News Chicago's mayor details mentoring plans in crim... 8 min southern at heart 35
News Violence breaks out again in US city after poli... 9 min Go Blue Forever 60
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 9 min Coffee Party 395,976
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 21 min renee 10,476
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Cornelius Scudmister 244,034
More from around the web