Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10984 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.

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

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, 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

Anchorage, 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...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8314 Oct 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Try actually reading my post before you respond next time.
Seriously...? YOU go back and read my post and your post. I said you were wrong and showed you why.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8315 Oct 3, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"I guess if a Constitutional Law professor isn't good enough for you, nothing will be."

No, it's not. YOU said:

"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."

So I want YOU to show me where the Supreme Court specifically said what you say it said. The case number, the finding and citation will be just fine.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8316 Oct 3, 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...
So? They were wrong and the SCOTUS has now officially ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right independent of membership in any militia, confirming what the constitution and the 2nd amendment have always stated.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8317 Oct 3, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously...? YOU go back and read my post and your post. I said you were wrong and showed you why.
You said I was wrong but then said what I had already acknowledged.

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it?

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8318 Oct 3, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
What "alternate history"...? What did I say that according to you, did not happen...?
You are denying actual history with your gunner propaganda. When you claim that the right to keep and bear arms has always been an individual right outside of a militia you are making claims contrary to actual history.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8319 Oct 3, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"I guess if a Constitutional Law professor isn't good enough for you, nothing will be."
No, it's not. YOU said:
"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."
So I want YOU to show me where the Supreme Court specifically said what you say it said. The case number, the finding and citation will be just fine.
Then do you want me to prove that water is wet and grass is green. Come on - be serious!

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 Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May 13 Belinda 1
US Secret Service Clothes (Sep '06) May 8 nikonnicky 28
News Russian hacker faces decades in prison Apr '17 USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr '17 alina 7
News Oklahoma state senator plans to resign followin... Mar '17 Dakoter 44
News Man who drove suspicious car near White House i... Mar '17 RustyS 1
News Secret Service laptop containing Trump Tower ev... Mar '17 Cordwainer Trout 7
More from around the web