Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11004 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.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10257 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, Sissy, I'm not here to think things through for you- when you deny that southern states "dominate" the list of gun fatalities and the only thing we have is proof that nine out of ten are in the south.
After all: you deny the sun rises in the east.
Even though the actual facts prove quite differently, eh troll?

October 26, 2013

Gun Homicide Rates per 100,000 people

1. New Orleans (62.1)
2. Detroit (35.9)
3. Baltimore (29.7)
4. Newark (25.4)
5. Miami (23.7)
6. Washington D.C.(19)
7. Atlanta (17.2)
8. Cleveland (17.4)
9. Buffalo (16.5)
10. Houston (12.9)
11. Chicago (11.6)
12. Phoenix (10.6)
13. Los Angeles (9.2)[Add incorporated cities and it goes UP]
14. Boston (6.2)
15. New York City (4)
http://www.policymic.com/articles/70199/some-...

Of particular interest, is that the VAST MAJORITY [NINE out of FIFTEEN] of those cities are northern demonrat strongholds. And well over a third have the most stringent 'gun control' laws in the nation.

Do you actually like being kicked in the head?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10258 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth doesn't move around- like you move from the Plummer case to the Bad Elk case...
"Internet meme
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”
The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[22]
The other case cited in the above "quotation" is the U.S. Supreme Court case Bad Elk v. United States[23] in which a tribal police officer was granted a new trial after being convicted of killing another tribal police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest. At the initial trial, the jury was not instructed that it could convict on a lesser offense, such as manslaughter."
Keep spewing, troll. It just provides more opportunity to prove how empty-headed you rally are. "Plummer" is, and always will be, IRRELEVANT. While the U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced will not:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10259 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
While the U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced will not:
Hard to get past my proof: actual court documents from 110 years ago with the ACTUAL quote, eh, Vince?

2ndAmRight wrote:
"“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”

Exact fabricated MISQUOTE, Sod0mite.

And to "prove" the 'citizens may resist' quote authentic, you say it is offered here:

2ndAmRight wrote:

"If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.
Did you notice, Shug, that they are not close to being the same thing?

Where oh where is your quote?

You do see I have refuted by TWO sources- putting aside,**YOU** have to prove it is authentic.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10260 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to get past my proof: actual court documents from 110 years ago with the ACTUAL quote, eh, Vince?
2ndAmRight wrote:
"“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
Exact fabricated MISQUOTE, Sod0mite.
And to "prove" the 'citizens may resist' quote authentic, you say it is offered here:
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice, Shug, that they are not close to being the same thing?
Where oh where is your quote?
You do see I have refuted by TWO sources- putting aside,**YOU** have to prove it is authentic.
Wow, troll. You actually believe that there are people on these threads that swallow your lies? Here is the EXACT QUOTE I posted:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”...

Which was taken verbatim from the following site:

The Constitution Society

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.ht...

Why don't you just try to spew your mindless drool to Constitution.org and see what happens troll? He'll bounce you around like a basketball in court.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#10262 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, Sissy, I'm not here to think things through for you- when you deny that southern states "dominate" the list of gun fatalities and the only thing we have is proof that nine out of ten are in the south.
After all: you deny the sun rises in the east.
You simple minded pecker-checker, I haven't denied anything except that Michigan is a southern state. You're a typical leftist liberal bobble-head, you make a comment and then when asked what your point is, instead of just admitting that you're an ignorant bigoted POS, you dance around the issue and attempt to deflect. Now get back to your peep-hole behind the urinal.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10263 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Here is the EXACT QUOTE I posted:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind.
"The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest."

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#10265 Nov 16, 2013
Irelands own wrote:
<quoted text>
Slainte!
:-)
And slainte mhaith to you as well!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10266 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest."
Everyone can see here where barabrained2626 was stripped down to the bone:

Libel and Slander of the dead:(Starting on Pg. 119, 120)
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TTPG7O2819U9S...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10268 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone can see here where barabrained2626 was stripped down to the bone:
Yea... if only you would learn to read all the way through the posts even you put up...

PS: You said SLANDER. Now understand me: it isn't libel either, but you have to prove SLANDER.

S L A N D E R.

"However, in Turner v. Crime Detective, 34 F.Supp. 8 (N.D. Okla. 1940), the court held that a common law recovery for libel was not available to a deceased individual nor could the deceased individual’s estate or relatives recover for the libel. The Oklahoma statute does not include language that expressly changes the common law requirement that the individual be living nor does the statute language expressly create a right for a deceased individual or their relatives to recover for the libel. Therefore, the court held that in Oklahoma an action for libel cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased individual. Nonetheless, the statute language has remained unchanged."

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10269 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea... if only you would learn to read all the way through the posts even you put up...
PS: You said SLANDER. Now understand me: it isn't libel either, but you have to prove SLANDER.
S L A N D E R.
"However, in Turner v. Crime Detective, 34 F.Supp. 8 (N.D. Okla. 1940), the court held that a common law recovery for libel was not available to a deceased individual nor could the deceased individual’s estate or relatives recover for the libel. The Oklahoma statute does not include language that expressly changes the common law requirement that the individual be living nor does the statute language expressly create a right for a deceased individual or their relatives to recover for the libel. Therefore, the court held that in Oklahoma an action for libel cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased individual. Nonetheless, the statute language has remained unchanged."
MEANINGLESS, you mindless drone. As there are ample other states in which suit can be filed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10270 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
MEANINGLESS, you mindless drone. As there are ample other states in which suit can be filed.
Having Barefoot2626 slap the snot out of him in Oklahoma... GayDavy tries to move to another state...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10271 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
As there are ample other states in which suit can be filed.
Take your pick.

But we know from past experience you go through them all, I refute each and every one of them, and then you'll start over with Oklahoma again.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10272 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Having Barefoot2626 slap the snot out of him in Oklahoma... GayDavy tries to move to another state...
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10273 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take your pick.
But we know from past experience you go through them all, I refute each and every one of them, and then you'll start over with Oklahoma again.
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.” Kan. Stat. Ann § 21-4004 (2005).

The court in Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995), found the statute required actual malice in matters of public concern and further held that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad.
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TTPG7O2819U9S...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10274 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take your pick.
But we know from past experience you go through them all, I refute each and every one of them, and then you'll start over with Oklahoma again.
Not quite, treasonous troll. In FACT, the opposite is true. You have been THOROUGHLY refuted in each and every ignorant claim you have EVER made on these threads.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10275 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
Are you done with Oklahoma now, Sod0Mite?

Do you want to go through the states one at a time?
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.
Libel...

Do point out "slander" in this Idaho law, Vince.

Put aside that it isn't libel, either.

Are you going to pick Idaho now, SodoMite?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10276 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
You have been THOROUGHLY refuted in each and every ignorant claim
Is Alexander Hamilton dead?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10277 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you done with Oklahoma now, Sod0Mite?
Do you want to go through the states one at a time?
<quoted text>
Libel...
Do point out "slander" in this Idaho law, Vince.
Put aside that it isn't libel, either.
Are you going to pick Idaho now, SodoMite?
Your pathetic side-tracking attempts aren't going to change a thing, you lame coward. You have been thoroughly SMASHED, and everyone here knows it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10278 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
You have been thoroughly SMASHED, and everyone here knows it.
ummmmmmmmmmmmm.

Yeah...

I guess everyone here is confused why you moved from Oklahoma to Georgia to Idaho and lost, and you still don't know the difference between slander and libel.

What just is it that you have proved?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10279 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Idaho
Libeling
Libel isn't slander, Chunky,

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 First Lady: Secret Service Agents Taught Malia ... May 18 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
News Chaffetz asks for Secret Service leak probe Apr '15 novus ordo seclorum 4
More from around the web