Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion

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.

Comments
7,881 - 7,900 of 11,003 Comments Last updated Apr 3, 2014
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8762
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how the gun gnutters can only remember short sections of any amendment or a paragraph or two of any SCOTUS decision.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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."
Gosh.
Complete sentences...
Look who's talking. That quote was a personal opinion by only one of the members. NOT a ruling. The court can only rule on issues before them under the context of their argument. No other court ruling or law was before them therefore no ruling on legal or not. "Should not be taken to cast doubt" is a long way from saying "there is no doubt" just that this ruling did not apply to those "other" laws or rulings. As of the date of this "comment" there are infringements on the right that have NOT been addressed by the court or even presented for them to rule on nor was the question asked of the court if the right was unlimited. Gosh next time you should study law and court rulings before placing that nasty foot in your mouth.
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8763
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
George Jones was charged DUI on a lawn mower. There are more cases like being charged DUI while riding a horse. But when you address drunk driving there is no mention or even a hint of banning cars. I have yet to see a news report of a DUI death that named the type of car used, yet "assault weapon" is used even when it is later proven none was present. News groups jump before they even have the facts in cases they can fluff. Do you even have any idea of what car is used most in DUI cases? And yes there are plenty of cases where cars were used as weapons and if you had any brain you would know most of the time they are used in anti gun zones. You simply want to trade one type of violence for another. Sorry but us "pro self defense" citizens "will not negotiate".
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8764
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like the way you like to start in the middle?
"... we gun gnutters don't like all the words to the Second Amendment so we will post the ones we like".
And you anti rights people leave out the important words "right of the people". Not "some people" or "right of the Militia". Too bad you just can't get around that part no matter how hard you try.
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8765
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
Then again you also forget drunk driving IS legal as long as it's not on a government road. Also You can be charged with DUI even if you are of no danger to yourself or others on the road. There are cases where drivers where charged on closed roads with no other traffic on it and in cases where the driver was operating a very slow vehicle on the shoulder, not in traffic lanes. in fact just sitting in a car on the shoulder while drunk has been used to charge DUI. I have never heard any DUI or other assault by car or even murder by car cases as listed as car violence.
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8766
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Inside One Detective's Fight Against LA's Hit-and-Run Crisis
n the heart of Los Angeles' smoldering, gritty skid row sits the LAPD Central Division. Inside, one man with the weight of a city-wide epidemic on his shoulders waits for the phone to ring -- another call to investigate another killer.

Detective Felix Padilla has been working in the LAPD's traffic division for over a decade and focuses on a special breed of killers, ones who don't use a knife or a gun, but a car.
The epidemic, as L.A. Weekly called it in a series of articles, is hit-and-run incidents. His division alone sees an average of 8,000 incidents per year. With a fatal hit-and-run, it is a murder, plain and simple. "I think if we let the public know that these crimes are so frequent that we need their assistance, once they grasp that concept, you know, they will be able to help us more," he said. "The more they help us, the more cases we'll solve."
Versus

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8767
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how the gun gnutters can only remember short sections of any amendment or a paragraph or two of any SCOTUS decision.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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."
Gosh.
Complete sentences...
You dare expose =>YOUR<= ignorance before the WHOLE world!?!

Well, you open yourself to endless ridicule as a result!

YOU are an ANTI-GUN NUTTER!

No right is unlimited, inasmuch as to imply such would be to say that murder is totally acceptable.

However, ALL rights are ABSOLUTE. The idea of 'Absolute,' and 'unlimited' connote TWO entirely different concepts. But =>YOU<= wouldn't know that, inasmuch as you're a SUPREME dullard, and a DOTARD to boot!

Yet, you would imply that self-defense is unacceptable, if only that you disagree with the manner in which that defense is undertaken.

But, self-defense is unmistakably, and unequivocally recognised by ALL legal authorities as being =TOTALLY WITHOUT= limits, when there are NO OTHER OPTIONS.

Oh, and one last item: YOUR —unreferenced— quote above is part of the Obiter Dicta of the case you DID NOT care to mention.

Obiter Dicta is =NOT= a part of the Ratio Decidendi, i.e., the DECISION itself.

Obiter Dicta CANNOT be used —in any way, manner, fashion, shape, or form— as setting precedent, and therefore is WITHOUT legal value for any future subsequent finding.

Obiter Dicta has the essence of nothing more than a 'legal fart': It wafts in the wind, soon lost of its ability to impress anyone save the one originating the statement.
Versus

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8768
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like the way you like to start in the middle?
"... we gun gnutters don't like all the words to the Second Amendment so we will post the ones we like".
But THAT'S what =>YOU<= do, isn't it?

What part of the Second Article of Amendment don't =>YOU<= understand?

Is THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE mentioned in the FIrst, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Articles of Amendment, somehow different than that which is mentioned in the Second?

And if so, how would that be?

PLEASE =DO= PROVIDE historical information from the time of the FOUNDERS of the United States, which would tend to support ~your~ contentions.

You'll be doing that, won't you?

Real soon now, right?

RIGHT?!??!
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8769
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
"Clear enough?"

Almost...how are you going to get the car away from the drunk...? How are you going to stop him from getting into his car and driving off...?
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8770
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not at all. The first argument does not in any way imply the second. You are making a leap in logic not supported by the facts.
Nope, just the words.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8771
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Asked and answered. Try to keep up.
<quoted text>
More deflection. You haven't answered anything. What you have tried to do is turn the question back on the questioner. It ain't workin'. You made the statement as if it was the gospel and now refuse to substantiate it with supporting facts. Please try to be honest.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8772
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Squash proved that almost immediately.
Unfortunately those of us capable of independent thought and logical reasoning are NOT impressed with your jr high debate tactics like he was.
What would you know about "debate tactics"? You simply refuse engage and constantly deflect. What kind of "debate tactic" is that? I don't think repeating "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" is considered a legitimate "debate tactic". Blind adherence to leftist dogma is not independent thinking.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8773
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Go look at the context of the discussion. I said that trying to prevent gun violence without addressing guns is like trying to prevent drunk driving without addressing cars. Somebody disagreed, so I was explaining that it's not drunk driving if a car isn't involved. Driving a car is kind of integral to the crime of drunk driving. Without the driving a car part, it's not a crime. Without the driving a car part, nobody's killed by the car.
Clear enough?
Your logic is flawed here again. Violence without a gun is still violence. Murder without a gun is still murder. So now you are separating "gun violence" from other forms of deadly violence? So if the next mass killer psycho freak uses some other means to kill a dozen innocent people you'll consider it a victory because the victims weren't shot with a gun? What will it take before it dawns on you that the mass killer psycho freaks and criminals out there will not be deterred by your gun control measures. On the other hand, if all of the known violent criminals and known psychos were institutionalized they would be much more effectively deterred by bars and armed guards. It ain't rocket science. Attack the leftist liberal "feel good" policies that have created high speed revolving doors for our prisons and re-institute a system for effectively dealing with the criminally insane.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8775
Oct 9, 2013
 
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>\
so a well regulated militia means a well regulated people...thanks... you just proved armed vet a moron again....bwhhahahahhaha
No, you have just proved yourself to be a moron.....AGAIN.

"Well regulated" at the time of the Founders did NOT mean "controlled through legislation". It meant "the property of something being in proper working order."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8776
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have just proved yourself to be a moron.....AGAIN.
"Well regulated" at the time of the Founders did NOT mean "controlled through legislation". It meant "the property of something being in proper working order."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Carefull now AV, don't hit 'em with too many historical facts at once. You don't want to cause 'em any permanent brain damage. Oh wait! That's probably a moot point.
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8780
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
He does not need to prove a thing. It has been proven before SCOTUS who has ruled it is an individual right to keep and bear. Looks like you need to catch up. Of course to all of us who can read we already knew that.
Tray

Oxford, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8781
Oct 9, 2013
 
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
ahhhhh..squach tard is still bitter after the beating I gave him yesterday proving his ignorance...bwhahahhahahahahah ....you never stood a chance moron...you came to battle of wits unarmed.....
OOPS. Opened your mouth to without checking your facts again. Control freaks like you always underestimate your victims. We will not negotiate, we don't need to. You on the other hand can't take our rights. Now go pee on your leg so you can feel better.
MC Hammer

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8783
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>\
so a well regulated militia means a well regulated people...thanks... you just proved armed vet a moron again....bwhhahahahhaha
hence, you are not a militia by any means, you have no business arming yourself...and you barely hit a urinal, which means you are not qualified to carry or own anything beyond some rubber bands..
Everyone knows exact ally what it means and its definition has already been validated several times by the Supreme Court. Even the leftist idiots understand its meaning and for you to wade in and pretend as if you know what it means makes you look all the more stupider. I just can't believe that "YOU" are seriously trying to change the definition to the 2nd Amendment to suit your own argument because you’re too stupid to educate yourself on what has already been defined for over 200 years. I also think that since you don't even understand the basis of why it was written or its interpretation then how could you even have an accurate perception of an Americans rights. So I'll do you a "Solid" and point you to some basic links to bring you up to speed and maybe you will stop these idiotic nonsensical rants that show your ignorance on the topic of the 2nd Amendment.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-doc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...

The Federalist Papers (A MUST READ)
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers....

You're welcome
MC Hammer

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8784
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
so you quote some pro-gun dip$-hit posting his personal opinion and that is supposed to prove your case?...bwhahahhahahahahhaha.. .we established the fact that MILITIA was made up of PEOPLE...... and militia has been defined very nicely in the encylopedia:
Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
HAHAHHAHAHHA...This dumbass hack just copy/cut/pasted from WIKIPEDIA and was trying to pass it off as her own opinion by not posting the source. LOL... It doesn't get any lower than this fu@king idiot. This is what the left does when they run out of brain power. Copy/Cut/Paste what they want something to mean and try to fool people about what the truth is.(laughing to hard).

Here is the link he got it from also he SKIPPED over the first paragraph: I wonder why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_ (United_States)

Militia (United States)

The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services).

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8786
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
ahhhhh..squach tard is still bitter after the beating I gave him yesterday proving his ignorance...bwhahahhahahahahah ....you never stood a chance moron...you came to battle of wits unarmed.....
So the Satan worshiping freak is practicing self delusion again. Some things never change, like your level of stupidity. Your laughter is more than a little maniacal. Better have them check your meds. This isn't a battle of wits dopy, I don't take advantage of cripples. Now crawl back under your slimy rock and contemplate your next idiotic comment.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8788
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tray wrote:
<quoted text> George Jones was charged DUI on a lawn mower. There are more cases like being charged DUI while riding a horse. But when you address drunk driving there is no mention or even a hint of banning cars. I have yet to see a news report of a DUI death that named the type of car used, yet "assault weapon" is used even when it is later proven none was present. News groups jump before they even have the facts in cases they can fluff. Do you even have any idea of what car is used most in DUI cases? And yes there are plenty of cases where cars were used as weapons and if you had any brain you would know most of the time they are used in anti gun zones. You simply want to trade one type of violence for another. Sorry but us "pro self defense" citizens "will not negotiate".
Right. over 30,000 auto fatalities in the US so we should address drunk driving lawnmowers and horses.

Is this the best argument you have? Because if it is, you have no argument at all.

LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Wayne Meddaugh seeks office for Clerk of Superi... Jul '14 Alex Harris 1
Multiple Hess Gas Stations Hit By Skimmers Jul '14 Lio 13
Restaurant operator P.F. Chang's confirms credi... Jun '14 carey529 1
Greenfield woman could be facing fe... Jun '14 Hassan al Madji 8
Survey: Cybercrime on the rise May '14 commentard 1
Public-private survey finds cybercrime on the rise May '14 Cordwainer Trout 3
Medford arrest 5 in alleged counterfeit money s... (Aug '10) May '14 Moira Prior 39
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Secret Service People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••