Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10983 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.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6660 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?
Justice Scalia was simply stating that the court was not deliberating those issues in the Heller case and the courts' opinion has no bearing on them.....at this time. That statement does not in any way "agree" with your socialist desire to control the individual rights of others. As a matter of fact the Heller ruling sets you gun-grabbers back quite a bit by effectively slamming the door on one of your major attacks on the second amendment. You can keep posting that comment by Justice Scalia all you like but the truth of the matter is that the right to keep and bear arms has been affirmed......once again. More legislation to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms of the American people from leftist liberal control freaks will certainly be forthcoming. YOU LOSE.

Look up "individual responsibility", see if you can get your head wrapped around the basic concept and stop trying to hold all of society responsible for the actions of a few miscreants. Each individual is responsible for their own actions, go after those who create the problem and stop attacking the honest law abiding citizens of this country.

BTW, one can't help but notice that you're still DODGING my questions.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6661 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Weird that you find being in agreement with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it a "problem."
But that's typical for you gunners (and conservatives generally)- claiming to revere the Constitution when in reality your extremist ideology takes precedence over it.
Your version of agreement is the problem. Those of us who don't make a daily practice of deluding ourselves like you do have no problem seeing through your twisted misinterpretation of the facts.
Consistant

Landisburg, PA

#6662 Sep 11, 2013

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6663 Sep 11, 2013
Consistant wrote:
A law abiding citizen...

...right up until he wasn't.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6664 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with YOU.
Fortunately, we have proved a long time ago you are a pathetic m/f c/s liar who doesn't know what he is talking about, and I have personally shoved THE EXACT ENTIRETY of Heller decision up your azz a couple dozen times now, we can also be certain that you are illiterate as the decision written by Scalia could be understood by someone who has graduated the ninth grade.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6665 Sep 11, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Justice Scalia was simply stating that the court was not
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA!

A DUMBPHQ like you is going to try to explain what Justice Scalia meant to say?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

Keep working on that GED and then you can try to explain what Scalia meant to say but it seems everyone here that graduate past ninth grade understood exactly what he said without your "help".
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#6666 Sep 11, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
A law abiding citizen...
...right up until he wasn't.
So?
You are asleep right up until you wake up.
You could not walk before you walked.
You could not shit until your mommy fed you.

You have no valid point.
AnswersRus

Riverton, WY

#6667 Sep 11, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, we have proved a long time ago you are a pathetic m/f c/s liar who doesn't know what he is talking about, and I have personally shoved THE EXACT ENTIRETY of Heller decision up your azz a couple dozen times now, we can also be certain that you are illiterate as the decision written by Scalia could be understood by someone who has graduated the ninth grade.
Well of course now all the thinking people here are wondering why you can not understand it then.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#6669 Sep 12, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
A law abiding citizen...
...right up until he wasn't.
Yep and INDIVIDUALLY responsible for his own actions. Gun-grabbers like you would attempt to legislate against and penalize me (and all of the other innocent gun owners) for his actions. Can you say mass punishment? Try again Danny Boy.....

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6671 Sep 12, 2013
AnswersRus wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
You are asleep right up until you wake up.
You could not walk before you walked.
You could not shit until your mommy fed you.
You have no valid point.
So the most common argument from your gunners is that restrictions on the purchase or ownership of guns punishes law abiding citizens rather than criminals.

But the fact of the matter is that there aren't two separate and distinct categories - law abiders and criminals. That argument is simple-minded and naive. EVERYBODY is a law abiding citizen - until they aren't.

So for a gunner to say, "gun laws penalize me and other innocent gun owners" is meaningless. This guy was an innocent gun owner - right up to the point where he decided to shoot his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. Squash here is an innocent law abider - right up until someone pisses him off enough that he starts shooting. Same with every other gunner.

So their lame "innocent law abiding citizen" argument is nonsensical and meaningless. THAT is my point.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6672 Sep 12, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when you spent half a day avoiding answering why you assume I'm black - THAT was dodging and deflecting.
What I'm doing is directly responding to another poster and trying to keep you on topic.
But you'd rather play games than engage in honest, adult debate. That's fine. I understand. When your position has been proven to be intellectually and morally bankrupt, those are the games you have to play.
Run along now, child. Your finger paints are getting dry. LOL!
Pretty sure that I stated on no less than THREE posts that I didn't assume what color you are because I really don't give a shit. But you can continue with that LIE if you feel you must.

And it is YOU who continues to dodge and deflect and throw out personal ad hominem attacks becasue you can't hold up your side of the argument, you f-ing loser. The only one playing games here is YOU.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6673 Sep 12, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Weird that you find being in agreement with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it a "problem."
But that's typical for you gunners (and conservatives generally)- claiming to revere the Constitution when in reality your extremist ideology takes precedence over it.
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

#6674 Sep 12, 2013
Punching for Justice wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a paedophile and a terrorist. Only when you are swung from a tree and hit like a pinata will justice be served.
What an intelligent, logical, and rational argument.

You're not an unhinged extremist at all.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6675 Sep 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty sure that I stated on no less than THREE posts that I didn't assume what color you are because I really don't give a shit. But you can continue with that LIE if you feel you must.
And it is YOU who continues to dodge and deflect and throw out personal ad hominem attacks becasue you can't hold up your side of the argument, you f-ing loser. The only one playing games here is YOU.
You are lying. The proof is here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...

Until you can explain how those posts mean something other than what they plainly say, your denials are just meaningless hot air.

Come on, AV - show a little integrity of character. Man up and be honest.

For a change.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6676 Sep 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Obviously you don't understand what 'infringed' means.

Obviously guns can be regulated without your right being infringed. The USSC has always said so.

Is it your position that everyone has the unlimited right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6678 Sep 12, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying. The proof is here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...
Until you can explain how those posts mean something other than what they plainly say, your denials are just meaningless hot air.
Come on, AV - show a little integrity of character. Man up and be honest.
For a change.
LOL!
And here was the response: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6679 Sep 12, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying. The proof is here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...
Until you can explain how those posts mean something other than what they plainly say, your denials are just meaningless hot air.
Come on, AV - show a little integrity of character. Man up and be honest.
For a change.
LOL!
And why are you still doding this?

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

#6680 Sep 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you have "shoved" is your own head up your own ass. And the only thing that you have posted regarding Heller is the OPINION of ONE justice......NOT the entirety of the decision, so you just got caught in ANOTHER lie, ball-peen. Because as you are wont to repeat "you lie when you blink".
Scalia was writing for the majority. It was the majority opinion, not the opinion of ONE justice.

If you can't understand this simple fact about Supreme Court opinions, then you've just proven that you simply aren't intellectually equipped to speak intelligently on this issue.

I knew your opinions here are irrational and emotional. Thanks for proving that they're also based on complete ignorance.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6681 Sep 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And here was the response: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chambersburg-...
Sorry, there's no such post.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6682 Sep 12, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And why are you still doding this?
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".
Why don't you try reading what I actually post some time. I fully answered that tired, tedious question more than once. Here's the most recent, from 15 MINUTES AGO.
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't understand what 'infringed' means.
Obviously guns can be regulated without your right being infringed. The USSC has always said so.
Is it your position that everyone has the unlimited right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose?
You're asking a nonsensical question based on a false assumption. Your rights aren't being infringed by current law and I'm not proposing anything that would infringe on your rights.

Formulate a rational, reality-based question or move on. You're embarrassing yourself now.

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 Secret Service apprehends attempted White House... Nov 20 CodeTalker 4
News Prosecutors want Shkreli's bail revoked over Cl... Sep '17 Minnesota Mike 3
News U.S. Military's Space in Trump Tower Costs $130... Aug '17 L I G E R 4
News GW husband, wife face charges in counterfeit case Jul '17 lch2105 2
News Scene & Heard: VP Mike Pence on Sanibel Jul '17 Anthony wright 2
News Illinois man pleads not guilty to threatening t... Jun '17 HOLLA 1
News Secret Service investigating effigy of Presiden... (Jan '10) Jun '17 Trumpenstein bank... 44
More from around the web