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.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5075 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
You are welcome to your own opinion, but NOT your own "facts".
Marauder wrote:
You're free to live in this fantasy world of yours but don't confuse your "fantasies" with the real world...you're way out of your league.
LOL! You're funny.

Sorry, but simply rewording my descriptions of you and applying them back to me doesn't constitute an argument. That's called Freudian projection.

Come back when you can debate like an adult.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5076 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
GOOD! AND...?...what's your point...?
That's exactly how unconstitutional laws get overturned...by having those that stand up and fight for their rights...unlike those "CONTROL FREAKS" that simply want to control every aspect of the lives of others.
*sigh*

If you would read the thread and attempt to comprehend what you've read you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions like this.

Or maybe you would. Stupid questions seem to be your forte, friend. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5077 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
..unlike those "CONTROL FREAKS" that simply want to control every aspect of the lives of others.
You mean the conservative control freaks who want to control the sex lives of everyone in America?

LOL! People who live in glass houses....

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5078 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the conservative control freaks who want to control the sex lives of everyone in America?
LOL! People who live in glass houses....
Case in point

----------

Gays in Baton Rouge arrested under invalid sodomy law

There had been no sex-for-money deal between the two. The men did not agree to have sex in the park, a public place. And the count against the man was based on a part of Louisianaís anti-sodomy law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago.

The July 18 arrest is among at least a dozen cases since 2011 in which a Sheriffís Office task force used the unenforceable law to ensnare men who merely discussed or agreed to have consensual sex with an undercover agent, an investigation by The Advocate has found.

http://theadvocate.com/home/6580728-125/gays-...

----------

"CONTROL FREAKS" that simply want to control every aspect of the sex lives of others.

LOL!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5079 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL! You're funny.
Sorry, but simply rewording my descriptions of you and applying them back to me doesn't constitute an argument. That's called Freudian projection.
Come back when you can debate like an adult.
When the shoe fits....

Let me know when you want to actually discuss something since you refuse to acknowledge the facts and evidence as presented in a court of law.

Your "facts" are only your unsupportable opinions.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5080 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the conservative control freaks who want to control the sex lives of everyone in America?
LOL! People who live in glass houses....
Why deflect...?

I don't give a rat's arse what 2 adults agree to in the privacy of their home. That's their business. What I do care about is getting in the face of the "frustrated control freaks" that continually push their anti-gun agenda...or those that can't seem to deal with the reality of the court that found Zimmerman not guilty because he was being assaulted. Now, if you have some of the facts of the case or anything else you would like to discuss without deflecting, let's hear it.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5081 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why deflect...?
I don't give a rat's arse what 2 adults agree to in the privacy of their home. That's their business. What I do care about is getting in the face of the "frustrated control freaks" that continually push their anti-gun agenda...or those that can't seem to deal with the reality of the court that found Zimmerman not guilty because he was being assaulted. Now, if you have some of the facts of the case or anything else you would like to discuss without deflecting, let's hear it.
Sorry, but the facts of the case haven't changed since I posted them before:

1. A man with a gun chose to pursue an unarmed teenage who'd done nothing wrong.

2. The man with the gun chose to initiate a confrontation with the teenager after he'd been told not to.

3. As a result of the confrontation, the man with the gun shot the teenager to death.

You'd like to deny these facts by claiming that the jury said they weren't true. Unfortunately for you, friend, that's not what the jury said. The jury said that Zimmerman didn't leave his home intending to kill Martin, so they acquitted him.

And in Florida, that's enough. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, itís the states obligation to prove itís ABSENCE beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if youíre ever in a heated argument with anyone, and youíre pretty sure there arenít any witnesses, itís always best to kill the other person.

They canít testify, you donít have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened. How can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasnít self-defense?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5082 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
When the shoe fits....
Let me know when you want to actually discuss something since you refuse to acknowledge the facts and evidence as presented in a court of law.
Your "facts" are only your unsupportable opinions.
I have not only acknowledged the facts, I was the one who posted them here, remember?
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm...no, that 17 year old was standing his ground.
The medical examiner said Zimmerman's wounds were superficial and minor. And the screams for help were cut short by a gunshot.
Here are the undisputed FACTS, friend:
1. A man with a gun chose to pursue an unarmed teenage who'd done nothing wrong.
2. The man with the gun chose to initiate a confrontation with the teenager after he'd been told not to.
3. As a result of the confrontation, the man with the gun shot the teenager to death.
Everything else is just bullshit and hot air.
Your blind denial doesn't change the legitimacy of these FACTS.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5083 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why deflect...?
It wasn't a deflection.

It was a correction.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5084 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the facts of the case haven't changed since I posted them before:
1. A man with a gun chose to pursue an unarmed teenage who'd done nothing wrong.
2. The man with the gun chose to initiate a confrontation with the teenager after he'd been told not to.
3. As a result of the confrontation, the man with the gun shot the teenager to death.
You'd like to deny these facts by claiming that the jury said they weren't true. Unfortunately for you, friend, that's not what the jury said. The jury said that Zimmerman didn't leave his home intending to kill Martin, so they acquitted him.
And in Florida, that's enough. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, itís the states obligation to prove itís ABSENCE beyond a reasonable doubt.
So if youíre ever in a heated argument with anyone, and youíre pretty sure there arenít any witnesses, itís always best to kill the other person.
They canít testify, you donít have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened. How can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasnít self-defense?
#1, the way you describe it, is iffy.
#2 & 3 are complete bullshit. There was NO EVIDENCE presented in court that Zimmerman ever initiated the confrontation. The lead detective said they had no idea who initiated contact. In fact, the STATE'S witness said it was Martin who initiated the confrontation by asking Zimmerman "why are you following me?" And Martin is dead as a result of him putting Zimmerman's life in danger by bashing his head in to a concrete sidewalk.

But don't let the FACTS stand in the way of you BS. By all means....continue.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5085 Jul 29, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
#1, the way you describe it, is iffy.
#2 & 3 are complete bullshit. There was NO EVIDENCE presented in court that Zimmerman ever initiated the confrontation. The lead detective said they had no idea who initiated contact. In fact, the STATE'S witness said it was Martin who initiated the confrontation by asking Zimmerman "why are you following me?" And Martin is dead as a result of him putting Zimmerman's life in danger by bashing his head in to a concrete sidewalk.
But don't let the FACTS stand in the way of you BS. By all means....continue.
Ummm, you say "why are you following me" to someone who IS FOLLOWING YOU. That's how Zimmerman made contact - by FOLLOWING Martin.

And the "minor" and "superficial" (according to the medical examiner's testimony) cuts to Zimmerman's head hardly justify the word "bashing," do they? That's your preferred version of reality, not what actually happened.

Still not big on critical thinking, are you AV? LOL!
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5086 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, you say "why are you following me" to someone who IS FOLLOWING YOU. That's how Zimmerman made contact - by FOLLOWING Martin.
And the "minor" and "superficial" (according to the medical examiner's testimony) cuts to Zimmerman's head hardly justify the word "bashing," do they? That's your preferred version of reality, not what actually happened.
Still not big on critical thinking, are you AV? LOL!
But yet you consider your obviously biased view as critical thinking. HAHAHAHAHA

Buy a dictionary and look up the word hypocrite ... you may see your picture.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#5087 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why deflect...?
It's all Danielle is good for. A coward.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5088 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, you say "why are you following me" to someone who IS FOLLOWING YOU. That's how Zimmerman made contact - by FOLLOWING Martin.
And the "minor" and "superficial" (according to the medical examiner's testimony) cuts to Zimmerman's head hardly justify the word "bashing," do they? That's your preferred version of reality, not what actually happened.
Still not big on critical thinking, are you AV? LOL!
He made contact by following him???? LMAO!!! Do you actually HTINK about what you type here, or do you just let it flow???

Following after someone to see where they have gone is NOT making contact. Now running around the corner to get away from someone only to hang around to see if they come around the same corner then asking them a question when they do.....THAT is making contact. Punching someone in the face when you don't like their answer of "what are you doing here?"....THAT is making contact.

And the degree of damage to Zimmerman's head is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that he had injuries consistent with his claim of having his head beat into the concrete (also as testified by the ME) when the only injury Martin suffered at the hands of Zimmerman was a sungle GSW. Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

Still in denial of the facts, I see.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5089 Jul 29, 2013
THINK

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5090 Jul 29, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
He made contact by following him???? LMAO!!! Do you actually HTINK about what you type here, or do you just let it flow???
Following after someone to see where they have gone is NOT making contact. Now running around the corner to get away from someone only to hang around to see if they come around the same corner then asking them a question when they do.....THAT is making contact. Punching someone in the face when you don't like their answer of "what are you doing here?"....THAT is making contact.
And the degree of damage to Zimmerman's head is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that he had injuries consistent with his claim of having his head beat into the concrete (also as testified by the ME) when the only injury Martin suffered at the hands of Zimmerman was a sungle GSW. Things that make you go "hmmmmm".
Still in denial of the facts, I see.
Punching someone in the face? How do you know that happened? More of your preferred version of reality, huh? LOL!

Here are some facts (rather than the shooter's version of events). Zimmerman confronted Martin and Martin asked why he was following him. Then there was scuffling and Martin said, "Get off me."

If at some point Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman in the scuffle Zimmerman initiated, the fact remains that he was simply standing his ground in the face of an aggressor.

If things had ended differently, with Zimmerman dead, do you think Martin would have been questioned and released? Do you think Martin would be walking free right now? Of course not.

And why would that be, do you think?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5091 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Punching someone in the face? How do you know that happened? More of your preferred version of reality, huh? LOL!
Here are some facts (rather than the shooter's version of events). Zimmerman confronted Martin and Martin asked why he was following him. Then there was scuffling and Martin said, "Get off me."
If at some point Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman in the scuffle Zimmerman initiated, the fact remains that he was simply standing his ground in the face of an aggressor.
If things had ended differently, with Zimmerman dead, do you think Martin would have been questioned and released? Do you think Martin would be walking free right now? Of course not.
And why would that be, do you think?
How do we know Zimmerman got punched in the face??? Seriously??? How about that fact that he had a broken nose and two black eyes which he didn't have before the two met. Or don't tell me you are a big enough moron to believe like Barefoot does that his nose was broken from the recoil of his 9mm?????(rolls eyes)

And let's look at YOUR little scenario above......Now prove it. Oh that's right......YOU CAN'T. The prosecution, unlike you, doen't get to deal in what-ifs or maybe's or coulda's, shoulda's or woulda's.

Answer me this. The prosecution and the defense both had the mothers of both people testify that it was there son on the tape yelling for help, and Zimmerman had a couple extra for good measure. Why didn't the prosecution call Tracy Martin to testify???

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5092 Jul 29, 2013
"their" son

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5093 Jul 29, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
How do we know Zimmerman got punched in the face??? Seriously??? How about that fact that he had a broken nose and two black eyes which he didn't have before the two met. Or don't tell me you are a big enough moron to believe like Barefoot does that his nose was broken from the recoil of his 9mm?????(rolls eyes)
And let's look at YOUR little scenario above......Now prove it. Oh that's right......YOU CAN'T. The prosecution, unlike you, doen't get to deal in what-ifs or maybe's or coulda's, shoulda's or woulda's.
Answer me this. The prosecution and the defense both had the mothers of both people testify that it was there son on the tape yelling for help, and Zimmerman had a couple extra for good measure. Why didn't the prosecution call Tracy Martin to testify???
You claimed a punch in the face initiated the confrontation. Now prove it. Oh that's right.....YOU CAN'T.

But my description is drawn from sworn testimony. Yours? Not so much. LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5094 Jul 29, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
But yet you consider your obviously biased view as critical thinking. HAHAHAHAHA
Buy a dictionary and look up the word hypocrite ... you may see your picture.
biased = based on the facts presented

LOL!

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lots of talk, little action in Congress after s... 3 min papa 81
News Cities and states take the lead on banning bump... 1 hr Get Out 312
News Another School Shooting-But Who's Counting? 19 hr javawhey 6
News Jimmy Kimmel Blames Trump, GOP After School Sho... Fri FormerParatrooper 1
News Dead Not Counted Before Liberals Started Lying ... Fri Shelly Bl 1
News Remington seeks to restructure debt so it can o... Feb 12 sick of winning 1
News After Las Vegas massacre, Congress has failed t... Feb 12 Watchdog 1
More from around the web