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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8405 Oct 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
you may carry it, if you diplay it or I know about, I would call it in and laugh as they hauled your fat a$$ out... bwhahhhahahhahah...
switchblade is a locking blade..stupmoron... it is spring loaded...I know... I have one...
"switchblade is a locking blade..stupmoron... it is spring loaded...I know... I have one..."

I knew you were a criminal...I called it the other day...frickin' loser...that's why you want to get guns..."because you can't defend against them"...ignorant, non-reading, POS, "frustrated control freak".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8406 Oct 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
she plays dead with you....figures...kinky...
You're the one that admitted it...sick ba$tard

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8407 Oct 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Fits you perfectly...thanks.
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
You beat me to that one.
Once their revisionist history and debunked "statistics" have been refuted, this is all the gunners have left: "I know you are but what am I."

LOL!

Grow up, boys. When you're equipped to debate honestly with established facts, get back to me.

LMAO!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8410 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Once their revisionist history and debunked "statistics" have been refuted, this is all the gunners have left: "I know you are but what am I."
LOL!
Grow up, boys. When you're equipped to debate honestly with established facts, get back to me.
LMAO!
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed,[as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

"...the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8411 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Once their revisionist history and debunked "statistics" have been refuted, this is all the gunners have left: "I know you are but what am I."
LOL!
Grow up, boys. When you're equipped to debate honestly with established facts, get back to me.
LMAO!
It is often useful to not only try to interpret what the words of a part of the Constitution mean today, but also to see what they meant in the past. Proponents of the Original Intent method of interpretation always use the original meaning when looking at the Constitution. But even those who do not adhere to Original Intent still find the documentary history to be useful.
What follows are mentions of the right to bear arms in the documents leading up to the codification of the 2nd Amendment. Most are referenced on this site or others. Those that are not are transcribed from the publication The Bill of Rights (National Archives and Records Administration, 1980).
From the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776): That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state...
From the Vermont Constitution (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State...
From the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788): Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
From the Virginia Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
From the New York Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
From Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights (1789): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
From the Report of the House Committee of Eleven (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
From the amendments as passed by the House (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
From the amendments as passed by the Senate (1789): A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
From the Rhode Island Ratification Document (1790): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state...

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.ht...
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8413 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Once their revisionist history and debunked "statistics" have been refuted, this is all the gunners have left: "I know you are but what am I."
LOL!
Grow up, boys. When you're equipped to debate honestly with established facts, get back to me.
LMAO!
YOUR, revisionist history;

Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm...

"...strong reason to believe..."

Does NOT make it "FACT".

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8414 Oct 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia?
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
It is often useful to not only try to interpret what the words of a part of the Constitution mean today, but also to see what they meant in the past. Proponents of the Original Intent method of interpretation always use the original meaning when looking at the Constitution. But even those who do not adhere to Original Intent still find the documentary history to be useful.
ROFLMAO!

I've always said reading for comprehension isn't your thing. Thanks for proving me right.

Your first article is silent on your contention that there has ALWAYS been the understanding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

And your second article specifically supports my contention that the Amendment isn't clear, is open to interpretation, and has been understood as relating to militias and not individuals throughout American history until the Heller decision in 2008.

You're a funny kid, Raud. You make me laugh.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8415 Oct 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR, revisionist history;
Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm...
"...strong reason to believe..."
Does NOT make it "FACT".
LOL! You didn't have any education past high school, did you? Your utter lack of understanding of the language academics use kind of shows that.

Here's how it works, son - academics always couch there conclusions in conditional language because they have enough education and intelligence to know that our cumulative understanding of history is still incomplete.

They also know that our conclusions about history is always tentative because pretty much everything we know still only gives us "strong reason to believe" since the eyewitnesses aren't here to tell us.

But in your little black-and-white world, you don't understand that. You simply don't have the intellect or education to get how ignorant and misinformed this post (which, in your ignorant arrogance you posted TWICE!) makes you look.

Keep trying, son. Maybe some day you'll get it.

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8416 Oct 4, 2013
To save the WATBs the trouble of shrieking about typos - I know they're there. BFD.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8417 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO!
I've always said reading for comprehension isn't your thing. Thanks for proving me right.
Your first article is silent on your contention that there has ALWAYS been the understanding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
And your second article specifically supports my contention that the Amendment isn't clear, is open to interpretation, and has been understood as relating to militias and not individuals throughout American history until the Heller decision in 2008.
You're a funny kid, Raud. You make me laugh.
Good, I'm happy for you.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8418 Oct 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, I'm happy for you.
Best response possible.

When you're in over your head, best to stop digging, son.

LOL!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8419 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You didn't have any education past high school, did you? Your utter lack of understanding of the language academics use kind of shows that.
Here's how it works, son - academics always couch there conclusions in conditional language because they have enough education and intelligence to know that our cumulative understanding of history is still incomplete.
They also know that our conclusions about history is always tentative because pretty much everything we know still only gives us "strong reason to believe" since the eyewitnesses aren't here to tell us.
But in your little black-and-white world, you don't understand that. You simply don't have the intellect or education to get how ignorant and misinformed this post (which, in your ignorant arrogance you posted TWICE!) makes you look.
Keep trying, son. Maybe some day you'll get it.
LMAO!
"academics always couch there conclusions in conditional language because they have enough education and intelligence to know that our cumulative understanding of history is still incomplete.
They also know that our conclusions about history is always tentative because pretty much everything we know still only gives us "strong reason to believe" since the eyewitnesses aren't here to tell us."

And yet...after YOU saying all that and I must presume understand it, YOU make the "black-and-white" comment that this opinion papper is an "inconvenient fact of history".

"You simply don't have the intellect or education to get how ignorant and misinformed this post (which, in your ignorant arrogance you posted TWICE!) makes you look."

Really...?...I'm not the one calling someone's opinion a "fact of history". Do you realize how ignorant and misinformed this shows you to be...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8420 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Best response possible.
When you're in over your head, best to stop digging, son.
LOL!
Well we both know that isn't happening.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8421 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Best response possible.
When you're in over your head, best to stop digging, son.
LOL!
So where are your Supreme Court cases that support the "collective" right argument...?...I asked you that before and you baulked...having problems finding any...?

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8422 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody ever claimed that the Constitution was ratified by just the southern states.
Please try to be honest.
But your comment deliberately insinuated that the the only reason for the 2nd amendment was to support slavery. While that was surely a concern of the southern states at that time it was not the only concern but rather one of many from all of the states. Please do try to be honest.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8424 Oct 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Violent crimes havenít gone away with the UKís gun control. Theyíve actually gone up.
A lie repeated one thousand times is still a lie, Mooch.

"According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Still, while the U.S. violent-crime rate is less than half Britainís, its homicide rate between 2003 and 2011 was almost four times as high. "

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#8425 Oct 4, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
To deny (or be ignorant of) the politics at play in writing the Constitution is to reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of history. This level of ignorance (or denial) precludes your opinions from being taken seriously.
Come back when you have an actual understanding of the issue and its history.
I have a very clear understanding of American History and the process by which our government was created. Quite obviously much deeper than yours. I've come to recognize this as your M.O. when you can't logically and factually respond. You denigrate others as ignorant and declare yourself some kind of victor. It ain't workin'. You and the leftist liberals are the ones pushing for "revisions" to fit your "revisionist history". Try again.....
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8426 Oct 4, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>But your comment deliberately insinuated that the the only reason for the 2nd amendment was to support slavery. While that was surely a concern of the southern states at that time it was not the only concern but rather one of many from all of the states. Please do try to be honest.
"Please do try to be honest."

>Snicker<
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#8427 Oct 4, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't carry it.. it sits in a curio cabinet on display... I have no need to prove my manhood with knives and guns like hillbilly morons..
I use my brains to chop morons down to size, like I have with you numerous occasions..
you seem to be the criminal carrying concealed weapons were you shouldn't be....living in constant fear....you gotta love the life of a moron...bwhhahahahahhah
"I don't carry it.. it sits in a curio cabinet on display..."

Oh...ok...that makes it legal...riight..?(criminal possession)

"I use my brains to chop morons down to size, like I have with you numerous occasions.."

ROTFLMAO...and you know how to read and comprehend too...(wink, wink)

"you seem to be the criminal carrying concealed weapons were you shouldn't be...."

"Seem to be"...? Where did I say I was carrying that was not legal..?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#8428 Oct 4, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>But your comment deliberately insinuated that the the only reason for the 2nd amendment was to support slavery. While that was surely a concern of the southern states at that time it was not the only concern but rather one of many from all of the states. Please do try to be honest.
Sorry, but your inaccurate inference from the quote I posted does not make me dishonest.

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 U.S. Military's Space in Trump Tower Costs $130... Aug 7 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
News Secret Service relaxes marijuana policy in bid ... Jun '17 RushFan666 6
News Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May '17 Belinda 1
More from around the web