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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#9040 Oct 12, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
and you are the village idiot....
Nah...more like the village sheepdog.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9041 Oct 12, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
maraudertard has lost it...poor moron does not even know what he yapping about...this proves he has no credibility.....don't pity him, pity his poor mother...
On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act which contains an amendment to the LEOSA. Specifically it states that a former police officer or LEO with either the statutory power of arrest or power of apprehension under the UCMJ is now permitted to carry concealed firearms under the LEOSA.
Well finally...congratulations.

Now...do you know what the UCMJ is and who has "power of apprehension" under it...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9044 Oct 12, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted that two days ago dip$hit....
it pertains to former LEOs... can you say "MORON"....take a reading comprehension course...
LIAR!

This the part from the 2013 amendment that you just mentioned;

"...with either the statutory power of arrest OR power of apprehension under the UCMJ is now permitted to carry concealed firearms under the LEOSA."

YOU did NOT mention that before and that is the part I was referring to. That expands the qualification to include active and retired military police of all branches. That my dear ignorant, lying, criminal POS, extremist, "frustrated control freak" is what I qualify with. I'll let you know when I get my federal concealed carry permit that's good in all 50 States.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9046 Oct 12, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
about the same time jesus comes back... armed vet tard is waiting for that as well...couple of tards
and just think...it was all because of the Dems..lol

Ok "little johnny"...you can go back to playing in the street now.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9048 Oct 12, 2013
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
The Phantom

London, UK

#9050 Oct 12, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
another meaningless opinion from 200 years ago...vague and philosophical...but cute...fortunately the courts and legislature will decide what your rights are, not some hillbilly retards masturbating on the internet...
thanks for sharing...got any more opinions you want to hang your diaper on?
The rule of law has no place in your lying life, does it?
A law made over 200 years ago, and which still stands, has more validity than your pitifully deficient opinions.
Shall I guess that you'd change all laws to suit your particular ideology of the moment?

You sound like a weather vane which arrow points into a direction predicated upon the most instantaneous change of the political winds. No stability for you!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9052 Oct 12, 2013
The Phantom wrote:
A law made over 200 years ago,
Nope.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9053 Oct 12, 2013
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9054 Oct 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Yup

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9056 Oct 12, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
what is pursuance will be decided by the courts and legislatures not by a bunch of ignorant guntards...
The courts already have;

The right pre-existed the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The right does not depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal gov’t.

The right is recognized as an individual right belonging to the people unassociated with membership in a militia.

The right protects those arms associated with a militia and “in common use at the time”…and that could…“contribute to the common defense.”

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9057 Oct 13, 2013
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9060 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
... you are right on top of things aren't you...
Yep! It just pisses you revisionist morons off to no end too, doesn't it? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9061 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
maraudertard is losing it....poor dimwit is suffering from advanced stages of syphilis ..impacting his grip on reality...
Think so..?...show me what isn't true or hasn't been stated by the United States Supreme Court.

Come on "little johnny"...another opportunity for you to prove me wrong...lol...like last time you tried...lol
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#9064 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
the extent of your rights is determined the courts and legislatures... if that were not true, there would no gun control legislation..and you and the NRAtards would not be fighting tooth and nail......so stop giving us cute quotes from 200 years or 100 years ago which are meaningless in today's society...
you do not have unlimited rights...if you did, you could come down to california and march down main street with your AR-15 strapped to your a$$...but can't and you don't dare...
"...so stop giving us cute quotes from 200 years or 100 years ago which are meaningless in today's society..."

ROTFLMAO...each one from the United States Supreme Court...but I do love watching you show your ignorance in your attempts to justify the Supreme Court as "meaningless"...you' re hilarious...I can only imagine how many people laugh at you and your posts.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9065 Oct 13, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9066 Oct 13, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...so stop giving us cute quotes from 200 years or 100 years ago which are meaningless in today's society..."
ROTFLMAO...each one from the United States Supreme Court..
Nope.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9068 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
yep squachtard, we going to be stinging telephone lines to your trailer park....and soon you will have indoor plumbing...bwhahahhahahah..... ..
(this must be revisionist stuff for the poor dimwit..he is stuck in the 1800's still)
Your posts are exceptionally entertaining because you really don't have a clue what a complete fidiot you are. I mean, your level of stupidity is off the chart. It's hilarious to watch.

BTW, just because your attention span is only 10 minutes doesn't mean anything older than that is obsolete. DUH! LMAO!

Oh look! Here comes the short bus with the pentagram on the side, you'd better run along now. You wouldn't want to miss it.....again. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9069 Oct 13, 2013
Squach wrote:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.(1859)]
"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.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
from the Supreme Court of the United States

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9070 Oct 13, 2013
Squach wrote:
[Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
TEXAS....

not the Supreme Court.

And they were referring to the right to carry a BOWIE knife, specifically, in this case.

PS: the Texas Supreme Court would deny that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid- in 1872.

Poor Squishy... never waits to hear THE REST OF THE STORY...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9071 Oct 13, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
1859???? bwhahhhahahahahah......i
Squishy is copying from the typical gun gnutter blog and gets confused by the tag line... pretending it was a SCOTUS ruling.

Not.

Texas Supreme Court... and revolved around a knife, not a gun.

And of course they never bother to mention the ruling would be tossed out.

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 Russian hacker faces decades in prison Fri USA Today 3
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog (Jan '16) Apr 19 alina 7
News Oklahoma state senator plans to resign followin... Mar 23 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
News White House intruder was on grounds for 15 minu... Mar '17 Texxy 1
News Poop scooper gets probation for using fake IDs,... Mar '17 CodeTalker 3
More from around the web