Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11003 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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#8291 Oct 2, 2013
Cooking up a collective right: http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right...

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8292 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, that's a lot of words to simply dodge the issue.
I'll ask it again. This time see if you can respond directly:
- Show me any evidence that without immediate access to a weapon that people who have killing in mind still follow through.
You assert a lot of things, but when you can't provide a SPECK of actual, real-world, objective evidence to back them up, they are really nothing more than your OPINIONS.
You really like to phrase your questions in such a way as to be able to manipulate the answer, don't ya? It ain't working. Here's why; unless you're locked up in a rubber room wearing a straight jacket there is always immediate access to a weapon of some type. Or have you forgotten that the human hand is our first and most versatile weapon. The list is endless: knives, forks, hammers, baseball bats, frozen hams, cars, tire irons, rocks, sharp sticks, gasoline, rat poison, kung-fu, hatchets, axes, swords, rope, on and on the list goes. Millions of people have been murdered using the things I've listed. Shall we restrict and regulate the possession of all of them and the hundreds of others I didn't have time to mention? This time see if you can respond truthfully and tell us that you don't care how many people get killed as long as they aren't killed by a gun. Come on Danny, fess up and tell us that you're after the guns and and that's it. All you want is the guns. You don't care if people prove you wrong a thousand times, you gotta' get the guns. If you could magically make every firearm on the planet disappear, the violence would continue unabated because a killer without a gun is still a killer and the killers will just use something else like IEDs. You seem to think that deadly intent originates from touching a firearm but deadly intent exists independent of any tool. The fact that you refuse to recognize the truth and reality of this makes you very transparent in your efforts to disarm the American people.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8293 Oct 2, 2013
For more than a hundred years...the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment...

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8294 Oct 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You really like to phrase your questions in such a way as to be able to manipulate the answer, don't ya? It ain't working. Here's why; unless you're locked up in a rubber room wearing a straight jacket there is always immediate access to a weapon of some type. Or have you forgotten that the human hand is our first and most versatile weapon. The list is endless: knives, forks, hammers, baseball bats, frozen hams, cars, tire irons, rocks, sharp sticks, gasoline, rat poison, kung-fu, hatchets, axes, swords, rope, on and on the list goes. Millions of people have been murdered using the things I've listed. Shall we restrict and regulate the possession of all of them and the hundreds of others I didn't have time to mention? This time see if you can respond truthfully and tell us that you don't care how many people get killed as long as they aren't killed by a gun. Come on Danny, fess up and tell us that you're after the guns and and that's it. All you want is the guns. You don't care if people prove you wrong a thousand times, you gotta' get the guns. If you could magically make every firearm on the planet disappear, the violence would continue unabated because a killer without a gun is still a killer and the killers will just use something else like IEDs. You seem to think that deadly intent originates from touching a firearm but deadly intent exists independent of any tool. The fact that you refuse to recognize the truth and reality of this makes you very transparent in your efforts to disarm the American people.
Sorry, the facts don't support your opinion.

----------

Data suggest guns do in fact kill people

[G]un-rights advocates often argue that there’s no point taking away people’s guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife.

In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms.

In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn’t simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents.

Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents.

That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8295 Oct 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You really like to phrase your questions in such a way as to be able to manipulate the answer, don't ya? It ain't working. Here's why; unless you're locked up in a rubber room wearing a straight jacket there is always immediate access to a weapon of some type. Or have you forgotten that the human hand is our first and most versatile weapon. The list is endless: knives, forks, hammers, baseball bats, frozen hams, cars, tire irons, rocks, sharp sticks, gasoline, rat poison, kung-fu, hatchets, axes, swords, rope, on and on the list goes. Millions of people have been murdered using the things I've listed. Shall we restrict and regulate the possession of all of them and the hundreds of others I didn't have time to mention? This time see if you can respond truthfully and tell us that you don't care how many people get killed as long as they aren't killed by a gun. Come on Danny, fess up and tell us that you're after the guns and and that's it. All you want is the guns. You don't care if people prove you wrong a thousand times, you gotta' get the guns. If you could magically make every firearm on the planet disappear, the violence would continue unabated because a killer without a gun is still a killer and the killers will just use something else like IEDs. You seem to think that deadly intent originates from touching a firearm but deadly intent exists independent of any tool. The fact that you refuse to recognize the truth and reality of this makes you very transparent in your efforts to disarm the American people.
Seriously - paragraphs.

Your rants simply aren't worth the effort. If you want me to read what you write, make it readable.
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#8296 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the facts don't support your opinion.
----------
Data suggest guns do in fact kill people
[G]un-rights advocates often argue that there’s no point taking away people’s guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife.
In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms.
In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn’t simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents.
Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents.
That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.
Population of England 50 million
Population of United States 313 million

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8297 Oct 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>You really like to phrase your questions in such a way as to be able to manipulate the answer, don't ya?
The Queen of the LoadED question SPEAKS.

Do you spit or swallow, Sissy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8298 Oct 2, 2013
Squach wrote:
Here's why; unless you're locked up in a rubber room wearing a straight jacket there is always immediate access to a weapon of some type.
You've been watching too many movies.

I tell you what, I get the gun, you get the beach ball.

One two three go!

BANG....

Wipe your chin, shug.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8299 Oct 2, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Population of England 50 million
Population of United States 313 million
Yeah, that would matter if we weren't talking about RATES.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8300 Oct 2, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Population of England 50 million
Population of United States 313 million
Population of Japan 128 million
Gun Homicides in all of Japan: Eleven.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8302 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you need it spelled out for you...
When the SCOTUS affirms a lower court ruling, that is unrelated to stare decisis. Stare decisis is the legal principle whereby the SCOTUS makes decisions consistent with SCOTUS precedents. And all SCOTUS precedent going back since the very first 2nd Amendment case held that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective, not an individual, right.
The Roberts court abandoned stare decisis (and abandoned any pretense of originalism) in deciding Heller. Instead they exercised judicial activism, ignoring SCOTUS precedent, and decided based on changes in popular understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
Obviously in this case you support their activist decision. I just don't understand why you want to pretend it wasn't activism.
"And all SCOTUS precedent going back since the very first 2nd Amendment case held that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective, not an individual, right."

Well then it should be very easy for to prove that and the court as a liar...proof...?

"The Roberts court abandoned stare decisis (and abandoned any pretense of originalism) in deciding Heller."

That's a crock of BS and you know it. The Heller case reviewed the 2nd Amendment piece by piece and it's historical content and the historical precedents in several State Constitutions. You just don't like the decision and are reaching for straws to support your unsupportable position.

"Obviously in this case you support their activist decision. I just don't understand why you want to pretend it wasn't activism."

Obviously there is a lot that you don't understand...mostly because the findings of the court was not "activism".
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8303 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I know.
That's what I said - it wasn't unconstitutional ... until 2008. Informed people know that what's constitutional is whatever the SCOTUS says is constitutional.
But the SCOTUS has been wrong in the past. You know that, right?
So if a future court changes course and again interprets the 2nd Amendment as delineating a collective right, then this court's Heller decision will be "an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose," right?
"I know."
"That's what I said - it wasn't unconstitutional ... until 2008. Informed people know that what's constitutional is whatever the SCOTUS says is constitutional."

No wonder you have comprehension problems...did you not read where I said you were "Wrong"...?

The law was found unconstitutional...that deems it unconstitutional from the time it became law...NOT at the time it was decided.

“The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd ....
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8304 Oct 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
For more than a hundred years...the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment...
Prove it...and a blog from the New Yorker doesn't get it.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8305 Oct 2, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
we need to disarm the morons and retards like you, maraudertard and armedvetard... and since we can't perform IQ tests on everyone to filter you out, we need to disarm everybody... I stand a chance again arms, knives, kung fu, rat poison, etc.... guns are almost impossible to defend against....
"we need to disarm the morons and retards like you, maraudertard and armedvetard... and since we can't perform IQ tests on everyone to filter you out, we need to disarm everybody..."

Well, you can't, but you can keep dreaming. But just for grins...how would you go about doing that...?

"I stand a chance again arms, knives, kung fu, rat poison, etc.... guns are almost impossible to defend against...."

Finally, your true criminal nature comes out. YOU want everyone else disarmed, so you can have a safer work environment to commit crimes against the people. You do understand that the people have a better chance to defend themselves with a firearm against thugs like you. You're a pathetic, ignorant, "frustrated control freak".

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8308 Oct 3, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"And all SCOTUS precedent going back since the very first 2nd Amendment case held that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective, not an individual, right."
Well then it should be very easy for to prove that and the court as a liar...proof...?
"The Roberts court abandoned stare decisis (and abandoned any pretense of originalism) in deciding Heller."
That's a crock of BS and you know it. The Heller case reviewed the 2nd Amendment piece by piece and it's historical content and the historical precedents in several State Constitutions. You just don't like the decision and are reaching for straws to support your unsupportable position.
"Obviously in this case you support their activist decision. I just don't understand why you want to pretend it wasn't activism."
Obviously there is a lot that you don't understand...mostly because the findings of the court was not "activism".
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to debate this with you when you believe an alternate history.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8309 Oct 3, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"I know."
"That's what I said - it wasn't unconstitutional ... until 2008. Informed people know that what's constitutional is whatever the SCOTUS says is constitutional."
No wonder you have comprehension problems...did you not read where I said you were "Wrong"...?
The law was found unconstitutional...that deems it unconstitutional from the time it became law...NOT at the time it was decided.
“The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd ....
LOL! Try actually reading my post before you respond next time.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8310 Oct 3, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it...and a blog from the New Yorker doesn't get it.
Seriously?

LMAO!

I guess if a Constitutional Law professor isn't good enough for you, nothing will be.

In your fanatical ideological extremism, you've chosen to believe an alternate history of SCOTUS decisions. It's impossible to debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental reality.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8311 Oct 3, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
bwhahahhha..you already admitted you are illegally carrying a concealed weapon and stockpiling ammo....I called your bluff and busted you yesterday....the only dimwit guilty of criminal activities is you...more likely you are sexual deviant hiding in your mom's basement with a BB gun...
"...you already admitted you are illegally carrying a concealed weapon..."

ROTFLMAO...really...?...Liar!. ..lol...it is NOT "illegal" for me to carry concealed without a permit in Alaska...did you get that..?...NOT ILLEGAL!

Now, I asked you before and you failed to answer. Once again, define "stockpiling ammo" and show me the law that limits the amount of ammo I can have.

Now my ignorant, little, "frustrated control freak"...if that's the best you can do...you would be better off not posting and proving how ignorant you really are.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8312 Oct 3, 2013
satanlives wrote:
disarm?... same way it was done in Japan and Australia....you really need to get out more....masturbating in the closet with naked pix of your mom is not a life for you...
ROTFLMAO...and you really believe that the American people would just roll over for you...?...riiiight.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#8313 Oct 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to debate this with you when you believe an alternate history.
What "alternate history"...? What did I say that according to you, did not happen...?

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 House votes to overhaul the Secret Service Jul 27 Moliner 1
News First Lady: Secret Service Agents Taught Malia ... May '15 fedupwiththemess 3
News Gyrocopter pilot spoke with Tampa Bay Times bef... Apr '15 CSA 11
News Elder Bush's home alarm-free for 13 months Apr '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 4
News First lady: Secret Service agents taught Malia ... Apr '15 Responsibility 25
News Congress probes Clinton email scandal using new... Apr '15 Righteous 31
News First Lady Michelle Obama reveals that Secret S... Apr '15 fedupwiththemess 1
More from around the web