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.

Punching for Justice

United States

#6637 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
They are breaking the law. It is best they are hung for breaking the law of the land. The constitution is the law and the supreme court is to uphold it. If they fail in their duties they are to be summarily executed.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6638 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
*yawn*
You have great skill at taking my statements and turning them around. Good for you.
Let me know when you're interested in getting back to debating the issues.
Still debating the issues. I just figured, why reinvent the wheel when the template is laid out before you.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6639 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with YOU. And has ruled as such TWICE in the last five years.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6640 Sep 11, 2013
Punching for Justice wrote:
<quoted text>
They are breaking the law. It is best they are hung for breaking the law of the land. The constitution is the law and the supreme court is to uphold it. If they fail in their duties they are to be summarily executed.
LOL! Nothing like broadcasting that you're an extremist.

Justice Scalia in Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6641 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Still debating the issues. I just figured, why reinvent the wheel when the template is laid out before you.
You're playing games. Let me know when you're ready to be serious.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6642 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with YOU. And has ruled as such TWICE in the last five years.
Ummm, I don't think so...

Justice Scalia in Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6643 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, I don't think so...
Justice Scalia in Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Right. So as long as I don't carry into any "sensitive places" such as schools and govt buildings, and I follow the law when buying commercially, I am good to go.

Oh....before I forget, please point out the part of the 2nd-Amendment where the federal govt has the power to infringe on my right to protect myself with an effective weapon. I'm pretty sure is says that my right to do such "shall NOT be infringed". Just because someone is a supreme court justice, that doesn't mean they CAN'T make a mistake.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6644 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Nothing like broadcasting that you're an extremist.
And you do it so loud and clear too, Danny Boy!

The madman must be answered.......

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6645 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. So as long as I don't carry into any "sensitive places" such as schools and govt buildings, and I follow the law when buying commercially, I am good to go.
Oh....before I forget, please point out the part of the 2nd-Amendment where the federal govt has the power to infringe on my right to protect myself with an effective weapon. I'm pretty sure is says that my right to do such "shall NOT be infringed". Just because someone is a supreme court justice, that doesn't mean they CAN'T make a mistake.
You said the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me. But they do - as I just showed you.

So what was your point again?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6646 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me. But they do - as I just showed you.
So what was your point again?
Dodge

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6647 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me. But they do - as I just showed you.
So what was your point again?
Wow! You really have an overactive imagination. Justice Scalia is NOT infallible nor does his comment "agree" with your leftist attempts to disarm the American people. As a matter of fact the court ruled AGAINST you gun-grabbers in affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right separate and distinct from any membership in an organized militia effectively slamming the door on that particular assault you've made on the 2nd amendment. Drop back five yards and punt ‘cause you’re not going to get anywhere near the end zone.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6648 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge
False

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6649 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
False
Okay, so it was an evasive maneuver. Stop splitting hairs. Next step......deflection. You're very predictable.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6650 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
False
One more time for you Danny Boy. Here is your homework assignment for this evening:

Please point out the part of the 2nd-Amendment where the federal govt has the power to infringe on my right to protect myself with an effective weapon. I'm pretty sure is says that my right to do such "shall NOT be infringed".

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6651 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time for you Danny Boy. Here is your homework assignment for this evening:
Please point out the part of the 2nd-Amendment where the federal govt has the power to infringe on my right to protect myself with an effective weapon. I'm pretty sure is says that my right to do such "shall NOT be infringed".
Existing laws do not prevent you from exercising that right.

But you're going off track here. I was talking to the poster from Huston who claims that all existing laws are a violation of the Constitution, and that's simply false. He claims that judges who have upheld those laws should be executed, and that's simply nuts.

Are those your claims too? Do you claim that existing gun laws are unconstitutional? Do you claim that ANY gun law is unconstitutional?

I don't think you do, but here you are defending those whackadoo claims. Why? Are you really so obsessed with attacking me that you'll take the side of an unhinged extremist?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6652 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time for you Danny Boy. Here is your homework assignment for this evening:
Please point out the part of the 2nd-Amendment where the federal govt has the power to infringe on my right to protect myself with an effective weapon. I'm pretty sure is says that my right to do such "shall NOT be infringed".
Scalia said:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

.

I agree with that statement and have never proposed anything here in conflict with that principle.

So where are your bullshit criticisms of me coming from except from your fevered imagination?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6653 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Existing laws do not prevent you from exercising that right.
But you're going off track here. I was talking to the poster from Huston who claims that all existing laws are a violation of the Constitution, and that's simply false. He claims that judges who have upheld those laws should be executed, and that's simply nuts.
Are those your claims too? Do you claim that existing gun laws are unconstitutional? Do you claim that ANY gun law is unconstitutional?
I don't think you do, but here you are defending those whackadoo claims. Why? Are you really so obsessed with attacking me that you'll take the side of an unhinged extremist?
More dodging and deflecting. Typical.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6654 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
More dodging and deflecting. Typical.
Obviously you just want to keep playing games.

Come back when you can be serious.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6655 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you just want to keep playing games.
Come back when you can be serious.
And yet MORE dodging and deflecting. You crack me up.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6656 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia said:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
.
I agree with that statement and have never proposed anything here in conflict with that principle.
So where are your bullshit criticisms of me coming from except from your fevered imagination?
We know you are in agreement with it. That is your problem.

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 Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Heavy security at Trump Tower not going away an... Nov 22 Lawrence Wolf 27
News Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sp... Nov 7 RushFan666 30
News Russian man convicted of hacking into US busine... Aug '16 Mizike67 5
News Russian man faces US trial in lucrative hacking... Aug '16 Nu Wor Order 4
News Cleveland prepares for RNC convention protests (May '16) May '16 Hostis Publicus 9
News Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offen... (May '16) May '16 Jelly Belly Popcorn 3
News Man shot outside White House remains in critica... (May '16) May '16 WeTheSheeple 2
More from around the web