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.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11688 Feb 25, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Kruschev reiterated Lincoln's words when he claimed that communism would topple America without them ever firing a shot as She would fall from within, and the progressives have been on task here for over 100 years. Step one? Corrupt the youth.
As the commercial goes ... the oldest trick in the book. "Lookest thou over there".
Most correct. Just take a look at how many of the "Current Communist Goals" have been fulfilled here in America. The 'progressive' traitors have achieved over half of their stated treasonous goals here.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11689 Feb 25, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Make the consequences more than job loss - make it that you'll never work in law enforcement again. And the point of the jail time isn't reformation - it's punishment and therefore deterrent. We're talking about cops here - you know, people who respect the law and want to enforce it by catching bad guys.
BTW - if you have to resort to insults and name calling, you're losing the argument.
NOTHING is of greater "consequence". Or acts as a better DETERRENT, than the knowledge that you may very well have to pay for your "mistake" with your LIFE. Particularly when your "mistake" may harm the life or liberty of the ones that you were hired to SERVE.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11690 Feb 25, 2014
godless wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, thanks for your useless opinion... now go wipe....
go down to the your local mall and talk to some people and ask them if they know and care what Abe did 200 years ago.... M0R0N...
next thing you will tell me the 10 commandments were handed down from god and they guide us to be civilized....you are stupid enough to believe that as well...
Actually, drooling drone:

"Likewise, the two-witness requirement had been used in other statutes,[Footnote 34] was advocated by Montesquieu in all capital cases,[Footnote 35] and was a familiar precept of the New Testament,[Footnote 36] and of Mosaic law.[Footnote 37] The framers combined all of these known protections and added two of their own which had no precedent."--Mr. Justice JACKSON delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, Cramer v. U.S.,[325 U.S. 1 (1945)] Decided April 23, 1945.

Take a hike, you vile drooling drone.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11697 Feb 25, 2014
godless wrote:
<quoted text>
read this in your bathroom with the flashlight on this time..bwhahahhahahaha
As of Dec. 31, "more than 9 million people now have health care coverage because of the Affordable Care Act," writes Josh Marshall. "It now seems like the number is more like 10 million.
Here's how that number breaks down: 2.1 million people have signed up for private insurance through the exchanges. About 4.4 million people have signed up for Medicaid coverage. And about 3.1 million young adults got coverage through Obamacare's rule forcing insurers to cover dependents up to age 26. Then there's the unknown number of people who bought Obamacare-based coverage directly from insurers.
Let's see now, the population of the United States is about 315 MILLION people. So 9 million people would be around 3% of the population. Oh yeah, that's a rousing success, ISN'T IT?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11698 Feb 25, 2014
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>These things from the 1800s
Spam has nothing to do with topic at hand.

The only reason Topix keeps them posted is they fill up pages and more pages mean more $$.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11699 Feb 25, 2014
Squach wrote:
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
NEVER SAID IT!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Where's the source, Sweet Pea: time, place, date.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11700 Feb 25, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see now, the population of the United States is about 315 MILLION people. So 9 million people
Sod0mite: most of the 315 million ALREADY HAVE HEALTH CARE!!!!!!!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA!

45 million did not have health care, so that would be about a fifthh of those who don't have health care.

I understand, Sod0mite: taxpayers have always had to provide yours.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11701 Feb 25, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
Alexander Hamilton,
Homo Hamilton, our fondling father: wanted a king not a president.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11702 Feb 25, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.".
Utterly meaningless.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11703 Feb 25, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
You have resorted to insults and personal attacks because you have no more facts to bring.!
Now, now, don't say anything that hurt her feelings.

He can dish it out but starts crying when you toss it back into her face.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11705 Feb 25, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Utterly meaningless.
Yes, you are indeed.
FormerParatroope r

Topeka, KS

#11712 Feb 25, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many other, better solutions than legalizing the shooting of cops. How about eliminating military-type police raids all together? How about making no-knock warrants illegal? How about requiring multiple-checks before a raid is authorized? How about making the consequences of a wrong-address no-knock raid so severe that everybody thinks three or four or ten times before initiating one - like mandatory job termination for wrong addresses and mandatory jail time for all decision-makers if there's a wrongful death?
Jumping to legalizing shooting cops is an extreme and unnecessary measure that only creates the potential for even more death and more likelihood of abuse.
All good examples of proper planning. Yet, the simple question I asked seems to make you uncomfortable.

By saying it legalizes shooting law enforcement officers, it gives the impression of knowing someone is law enforcement and intentionally shooting them. The question I posed, and I believe the Bill addresses is not knowing the identity, and because of law enforcement mistakes, over reaction that creates the conditions that a law enforcement officer is killed or injured, keeps someone who reacted from being penalized for the actions of others.

You have to answer the question. Imho, no, the person should not be held liable in the circumstance I described. Would you agree?
FormerParatroope r

Topeka, KS

#11714 Feb 25, 2014
Dan,
Last sentence meant to say "you have yet to answer the question. "
Col Mustard

Dundalk, MD

#11717 Feb 25, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where I quit reading.
Get back to me when you calm down. This sort of hysterical exaggeration and irrational personal attack just shows that you've lost your capacity for calm, rational discussion.
A statement of fact does not an irrational personal attack make. As an objective observer I see no exaggeration. I clearly see your attempt to minimize and rationalize the part you are playing in the destruction of liberty. Closing your mind and reading no further just shows you have chosen blind adherence to dogma over rational thought.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11718 Feb 25, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
NEVER SAID IT!
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Where's the source, Sweet Pea: time, place, date.
Okay, here's the long version.....

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." (Abraham Lincoln from "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois" January 27, 1838)

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11719 Feb 25, 2014
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, here's the long version....
Long version?

Either someone SAID it or he didn't.

YOU GOT IT WRONG, SQUISHY!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

PATHETIC you cannot just admit YOU GOT IT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11720 Feb 25, 2014
Squach wrote:
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
PATHETIC!

Here's what you said he said.

You PUT IT IN QUOTES.

Try to MAN UP, little monkey!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11722 Feb 25, 2014
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
All good examples of proper planning. Yet, the simple question I asked seems to make you uncomfortable.
By saying it legalizes shooting law enforcement officers, it gives the impression of knowing someone is law enforcement and intentionally shooting them. The question I posed, and I believe the Bill addresses is not knowing the identity, and because of law enforcement mistakes, over reaction that creates the conditions that a law enforcement officer is killed or injured, keeps someone who reacted from being penalized for the actions of others.
You have to answer the question. Imho, no, the person should not be held liable in the circumstance I described. Would you agree?
No, I don't think an innocent person shooting a cop breaking into the wrong house should be held criminally liable. But I don't think making that legal is the best solution to the problem. Or even a very good solution.

When you set up a situation that forces a false choice, I'm probably not going to confine myself to the scenario you set up in giving my answer. It's not a matter of discomfort. It's a matter of giving a full and accurate answer to the issue at hand without being artificially limited to the manufactured "yes/no" proposition.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11723 Feb 25, 2014
Col Mustard wrote:
<quoted text>A statement of fact does not an irrational personal attack make. As an objective observer I see no exaggeration. I clearly see your attempt to minimize and rationalize the part you are playing in the destruction of liberty. Closing your mind and reading no further just shows you have chosen blind adherence to dogma over rational thought.
The part I'm playing in the destruction of liberty? Really?

I'm not doing anything to destroy liberty. Nothing I've said here can be reasonably construed to even suggest that. When you say things like that shows that YOU have chosen blind adherence to dogma over rational thought.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11726 Feb 26, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The part I'm playing in the destruction of liberty? Really?
I'm not doing anything to destroy liberty. Nothing I've said here can be reasonably construed to even suggest that. When you say things like that shows that YOU have chosen blind adherence to dogma over rational thought.
Then that only shows that you are hopelessly blinded to reality.

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