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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5096 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
I made no such claim, liar. I said Martin initiated the confrontation by asking Zimmerman "why are you following me?", to which Zimmerman replied "what are you doing here".(testimony from Rachel Jeantel)

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5097 Jul 29, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no such claim, liar. I said Martin initiated the confrontation by asking Zimmerman "why are you following me?", to which Zimmerman replied "what are you doing here".(testimony from Rachel Jeantel)
You didn't make that claim?

Really?
Armed Veteran wrote:
Punching someone in the face when you don't like their answer of "what are you doing here?"....THAT is making contact.
Now prove it. Oh that's right.....YOU CAN'T.

BTW - I don't lie. You really shouldn't make such dishonest and unfounded accusations.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5098 Jul 29, 2013
Juror says Zimmerman Ďgot away with murderí

The second juror in the George Zimmerman trial to give a television interview said the former neighborhood watch volunteer ďgot away with murderĒ when he was acquitted earlier this month in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/juror-...
ThugsDeserveDeat h

United States

#5099 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Zimmerman was found not-guilty. Seems like you are the one who needs to do the proving, retard.
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#5100 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
biased = based on the facts presented
LOL!
Only if you consider the opinions you present as facts. But then why would we expect change from you. Continue on with your delusions.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5101 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't make that claim?
Really?
<quoted text>
Now prove it. Oh that's right.....YOU CAN'T.
BTW - I don't lie. You really shouldn't make such dishonest and unfounded accusations.
It wasn't dishonest or unfounded. Here is a cut-paste from YOUR post: "You claimed a punch in the face initiated the confrontation."

I made no such claim.

You are simply playing semantics. The initial CONFRONTATION is who approached who. By the prosecutions witness, it was Martin who first spoke to Zimmerman. THAT is the initial confrontation. The first person to make CONTACT, as in physical contact, would also be Martin. Proof? That would be the evidence of Zimmerman's broken nose and the abrasion on Martin's knuckles consistent with punching someone, and the LACK of evidence of any offensive wounds on Martin except a single GSW.

Sorry pal, but the physical AND testimonial evidence in this trial does NOT support your claim. Try again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5102 Jul 29, 2013
Marauder wrote:
...unlike those "CONTROL FREAKS" that simply want to control every aspect of the lives of others.
You mean those "control freaks" that insist they should have the right to chase people down the street, start a fight, and they shoot them when they start getting their azz kicked?

And control freaks like you insist that's okay, even when SYG protects felons carrying guns?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5103 Jul 29, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
The initial CONFRONTATION is who approached who. By the prosecutions witness, it was Martin who first spoke to Zimmerman.
The PEDOPHILE got out of his truck, chased after Martin, was told by the dispatcher to NOT chase after Martin, the pedo-phile replied "OK", hung up the phone, then continued to look for then follow Martin for three minutes, and the4n the PEDOPHILE approached the boy with the intention to DETAIN him.

The cop wannabe hero.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5104 Jul 29, 2013
[QUOTE who="Armed Veteran" That would be the evidence of Zimmerman's broken nose[/QUOTE]

The broken nose is consistent with the pedophile holding the gun in front of his face and pulling the trigger.

There would not have been broken skin on anyone's knuckles if the PEDOPHILE had stayed and waiting for the cops like he was told.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5105 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?
Well gee, maybe the prosecution should have used you during the trial since you seem to have more "facts" and evidence than they did.

YOU do have the evidence to support these so called "facts" of yours...right..?

What is your definition of "pursue"...?

What is your definition of "initiate a confrontation"...?

Number 3 is semi-correct...it's just the way YOU get there is wrong.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5106 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not only acknowledged the facts, I was the one who posted them here, remember?
<quoted text>
Your blind denial doesn't change the legitimacy of these FACTS.
I'm not denying anything except your unsupported opinion.

If you had "facts", then YOU could show evidence to support them...where is that evidence...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5107 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't a deflection.
It was a correction.
ROTFLMAO...making reference to gays wasn't a "deflection"...it was a "correction"...that' s funny.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5108 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!
"...the "minor" and "superficial" (according to the medical examiner's testimony) cuts to Zimmerman's head hardly justify the word "bashing," do they?"

One well placed strike to the head can cause a deadly subdural hematoma. If your head was being bounced off the concrete, how long would you wait before you act to stop it...?

YOU expect him to wait until his head is split open...or about to black out...? Please tell us so we will know when it's ok, according to you, to defend yourself. You already acknowledged he was striking his head to the concrete...

"Subdural hematomas (SDHs) can be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, even with the best medical and neurosurgical care. They are usually caused by trauma but can be spontaneous or result from a procedure (eg, lumbar puncture)."

BTW...the act of "following", now that you are using the correct word...is NOT a form of "contact". When the state's witness who is on the phone says she heard Martin ask "Why are you following me?"...THAT is making first contact....from sworn testimony.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5109 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
Juror says Zimmerman Ďgot away with murderí
The second juror in the George Zimmerman trial to give a television interview said the former neighborhood watch volunteer ďgot away with murderĒ when he was acquitted earlier this month in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/juror-...
Oh dang...and she had to put her feelings aside and decide based on the law. The law that says you can defend yourself against an assault that places you in fear of great bodily harm or death.

I guess it would have been better all around if Martin hadn't put Zimmerman in that position to begin with.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5110 Jul 29, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't make that claim?
Really?
<quoted text>
Now prove it. Oh that's right.....YOU CAN'T.
BTW - I don't lie. You really shouldn't make such dishonest and unfounded accusations.
"BTW - I don't lie."

How can you tell when a liar is lying...?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5111 Jul 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean those "control freaks" that insist they should have the right to chase people down the street, start a fight, and they shoot them when they start getting their azz kicked?
And control freaks like you insist that's okay, even when SYG protects felons carrying guns?
Let us know when you find such a case.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5112 Jul 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The PEDOPHILE got out of his truck, chased after Martin, was told by the dispatcher to NOT chase after Martin, the pedo-phile replied "OK", hung up the phone, then continued to look for then follow Martin for three minutes, and the4n the PEDOPHILE approached the boy with the intention to DETAIN him.
The cop wannabe hero.
"chased"...lol

"...approached the boy with the intention to DETAIN him."

Dang, and you're a mind reader too...you should have been a prosecution witness.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5113 Jul 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The broken nose is consistent with the pedophile holding the gun in front of his face and pulling the trigger.
There would not have been broken skin on anyone's knuckles if the PEDOPHILE had stayed and waiting for the cops like he was told.
"The broken nose is consistent with the pedophile holding the gun in front of his face and pulling the trigger."

ROTFLMAO..."consistant " huh..?..seen a lot of those have you...how about some links...?

YOU do know what those are right...?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#5114 Jul 29, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't dishonest or unfounded. Here is a cut-paste from YOUR post: "You claimed a punch in the face initiated the confrontation."
I made no such claim.
You are simply playing semantics. The initial CONFRONTATION is who approached who. By the prosecutions witness, it was Martin who first spoke to Zimmerman. THAT is the initial confrontation. The first person to make CONTACT, as in physical contact, would also be Martin. Proof? That would be the evidence of Zimmerman's broken nose and the abrasion on Martin's knuckles consistent with punching someone, and the LACK of evidence of any offensive wounds on Martin except a single GSW.
Sorry pal, but the physical AND testimonial evidence in this trial does NOT support your claim. Try again.
There is just as much evidence that the initial physical confrontation was started by Zimmerman shoving Martin as Martin punching him in the nose.

Meaning that there is ZERO evidence (much less "proof" LOL!) that's how it started.

You're simply making that up. Zimmerman's nose could have been hit during a struggle on the ground that Zimmerman initiated. You are simply fabricating facts when you claim that a punch in the nose is how it started.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5115 Jul 30, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There is just as much evidence that the initial physical confrontation was started by Zimmerman shoving Martin as Martin punching him in the nose.
Meaning that there is ZERO evidence (much less "proof" LOL!) that's how it started.
You're simply making that up. Zimmerman's nose could have been hit during a struggle on the ground that Zimmerman initiated. You are simply fabricating facts when you claim that a punch in the nose is how it started.
"There is just as much evidence that the initial physical confrontation was started by Zimmerman shoving Martin as Martin punching him in the nose."

So by changing the goal posts to "initial physical confrontation", you are conceding that the first contact was made by Martin in approaching Zimmerman and asking him a question...?

What physical evidence do you have that "Zimmerman shoving Martin"...?

There is physical evidence of Zimmerman's broken nose.

"Zimmerman's nose could have been hit during a struggle on the ground that Zimmerman initiated."

"could have" doesn't go over very well in a court of law that deals with facts and evidence. Do you have a witness, physical or forensic evidence that contradict the statements of Zimmerman...?

"You are simply fabricating facts when you claim that a punch in the nose is how it started."

He isn't fabricating anything...that was statement of Zimmerman. Now, do you have any evidence that would prove or disprove that assertion...?

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 The news media love America. The government, no... 3 hr Erl 63
LAX Ammo Photo Contest/Giveaway! Thu KTSullivan 2
Taurus Gaucho Revolver (May '06) Sep 16 Senb12 29
News Lawyer: 'Pharma Bro' joking about bounty for Cl... Sep 13 Jeff Brightone 2
News Ryan Blocking Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Cong... Sep 11 FormerParatrooper 1
News D.C. Requests Hearing on Protection of Second A... Sep 10 Lou Posey 3
News SCOTUS Asked to Review Ninth Circuit Decision o... Sep 9 FormerParatrooper 2
More from around the web