Area gun sales, fears rising

There are 7568 comments on the North Port Sun story from Nov 14, 2012, titled Area gun sales, fears rising. In it, North Port Sun reports that:

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at North Port Sun.

xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#3634 Jan 24, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
20,000 gun laws on the books and the Czar in Chief thinks more laws are going to make a difference.
That shows a true lack of leadership and logic.
All talk and no action never solved anything.
Obama wants to distract the country that his great failing is a lack of understanding on how to create jobs.
You're not giving DumBama enough credit. He knows how to create jobs, but jobs are not his concern. HIs concern is to expand government dependency as much as he can. More government workers, more bureaucracies, more people on food stamps and welfare, all college students who need loans, and yes, more people on government healthcare of some kind.

It's a pattern that can only be missed by the blind. In sprite of actual numbers and documented proof, liberals still believe that this was not DumBama's goal. They really believe that the so-called stimulus plan was to create new jobs outside of the public sector. They believe all his failures are because of Bush or the Republican Congress. Obama can do no wrong in their minds, that's how he got reelected. The man is flawless.
just another guy

Denver, CO

#3635 Jan 24, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has seen the proof you claim to have provided.
The lunatic left never has proof of their assertions. The policies they advocate are just retreads of previous failed policies, except on occasion on a grander scale. They are even more useless than tits on a bull.

They have been repeatedly shown how they are wrong on gun control, well not just gun control. Then they reply with a personal insult or repeat the same crap already proven wrong.

Thankfully there are posters like you who are in control of their mind(and guns).

I see now that even NBC is admitting the Ct shooter did not use the dreaded "assault weapon". Seems he stole it and left it in the trunk of his car. They will still stick to clamoring for AWBII.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#3636 Jan 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not giving DumBama enough credit. He knows how to create jobs, but jobs are not his concern. HIs concern is to expand government dependency as much as he can. More government workers, more bureaucracies, more people on food stamps and welfare, all college students who need loans, and yes, more people on government healthcare of some kind.
It's a pattern that can only be missed by the blind. In sprite of actual numbers and documented proof, liberals still believe that this was not DumBama's goal. They really believe that the so-called stimulus plan was to create new jobs outside of the public sector. They believe all his failures are because of Bush or the Republican Congress. Obama can do no wrong in their minds, that's how he got reelected. The man is flawless.
You should have ended that last statement with "in the eyes of the ignorant and blind."
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#3637 Jan 24, 2013
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The lunatic left never has proof of their assertions. The policies they advocate are just retreads of previous failed policies, except on occasion on a grander scale. They are even more useless than tits on a bull.
They have been repeatedly shown how they are wrong on gun control, well not just gun control. Then they reply with a personal insult or repeat the same crap already proven wrong.
Thankfully there are posters like you who are in control of their mind(and guns).
I see now that even NBC is admitting the Ct shooter did not use the dreaded "assault weapon". Seems he stole it and left it in the trunk of his car. They will still stick to clamoring for AWBII.
They do seem to let stories fade away, don't they? We still know very little about that shooting. We still have no more knowledge of the Benghazi situation, we still don't know what ever happened to that Ft. Hood shooter. It seems that the only information we get from these stories is what comes out the first week, and that's it.

It's not like when Bush was President. They held on to Katrina for many many months if not well into a year. We know no more about Jersey than we do the first few days after the storm. The media followed the Scooter Libby situation like they did OJ for many many months, and only a few scant stories about Fast and Furious.

It's not a wonder why the MSM is no longer trusted. Pick and choose the stories they wish to suppress and those they wish to amplify.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#3638 Jan 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have ended that last statement with "in the eyes of the ignorant and blind."
And I thank you for the correcting kind sir.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#3639 Jan 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep chasing your dream. Conservative people only listen to broadcasters who share their political views. The reason you guys hate conservative talk is because you are then exposed. Who cares where we get our information from? If it's true, then it's true and it doesn't matter if we get that information from Rush or Walter Williams. When it's not true, then make your point. Until that time, you guys on the left keep throwing this Rush/Fox thing out to automatically dismiss an argument you can't defend. That's why they bother you so.
You obviously don't understand how group medical plans work. Insurance companies have pools of people who use their service. When these pools have increased cost, they raise everybody's premium--not just the individual. Therefore, Sandra gets millions of women covered for whoopie, and we all have to pay for it. Why? Because a few thousand of those women will use the same insurance company that my employer uses. Again, the costs are divided among the individuals that use that particular insurance company. Some like Catholic charities who self-insure their employees just have to cough up cash to pay for those birth control pills.
I have news for you. Insurance premiums go up all the time. That's not the point. The point is that Rush Limbaugh is LYING when he tells you that Sandra Fluke is trying to TAKE something from YOU. She pays her own insurance premiums, just as you pay yours. Again, when Rush tells you that Sandra Fluke is asking you, or me, or any other taxpayer for a handout, he is LYING. He knows that you didn't watch Fluke's testimony. That's why he feels confident that you will believe his lies about the testimony. And you have proven him right.

Both Rush Limbaugh and I are lauging at you. But for different reasons.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#3640 Jan 24, 2013
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>The lunatic left never has proof of their assertions. The policies they advocate are just retreads of previous failed policies, except on occasion on a grander scale. They are even more useless than tits on a bull.

They have been repeatedly shown how they are wrong on gun control, well not just gun control. Then they reply with a personal insult or repeat the same crap already proven wrong.

Thankfully there are posters like you who are in control of their mind(and guns).

I see now that even NBC is admitting the Ct shooter did not use the dreaded "assault weapon". Seems he stole it and left it in the trunk of his car. They will still stick to clamoring for AWBII.
BINGO! It's like they were all manufactured in the same robot factory.
Probably in China.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#3641 Jan 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>They do seem to let stories fade away, don't they? We still know very little about that shooting. We still have no more knowledge of the Benghazi situation, we still don't know what ever happened to that Ft. Hood shooter. It seems that the only information we get from these stories is what comes out the first week, and that's it.

It's not like when Bush was President. They held on to Katrina for many many months if not well into a year. We know no more about Jersey than we do the first few days after the storm. The media followed the Scooter Libby situation like they did OJ for many many months, and only a few scant stories about Fast and Furious.

It's not a wonder why the MSM is no longer trusted. Pick and choose the stories they wish to suppress and those they wish to amplify.
Oh, didn't you realize? Lance Armstrong "doping" is more important news.
That one we will hear about for months to come.
But, as you say, when a mass shooting occurs, and the "facts" start to deviate from the socialist agenda, the coverage fades into the background.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#3642 Jan 24, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>I have news for you. Insurance premiums go up all the time. That's not the point. The point is that Rush Limbaugh is LYING when he tells you that Sandra Fluke is trying to TAKE something from YOU. She pays her own insurance premiums, just as you pay yours. Again, when Rush tells you that Sandra Fluke is asking you, or me, or any other taxpayer for a handout, he is LYING. He knows that you didn't watch Fluke's testimony. That's why he feels confident that you will believe his lies about the testimony. And you have proven him right.

Both Rush Limbaugh and I are lauging at you. But for different reasons.
Here's the thing. If Sandra Fluke had really been a 23 year old coed, she would be placed on her parents policy until age 26. Who pays for that? It is spread out over the other policy holders. There's a lot of people out there 26 and younger.
It turns out Sandra Flake isn't one of them however. She will actually be 32 in April. She was also a former president of Law Students For Reproductive Justice.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#3643 Jan 24, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
I have news for you. Insurance premiums go up all the time. That's not the point. The point is that Rush Limbaugh is LYING when he tells you that Sandra Fluke is trying to TAKE something from YOU. She pays her own insurance premiums, just as you pay yours. Again, when Rush tells you that Sandra Fluke is asking you, or me, or any other taxpayer for a handout, he is LYING. He knows that you didn't watch Fluke's testimony. That's why he feels confident that you will believe his lies about the testimony. And you have proven him right.
Both Rush Limbaugh and I are lauging at you. But for different reasons.
You seem to know a lot about Rush for not listening to him. Of course, if you did listen to him, you would realize he never said any of those things. What he said is that it's ridiculous for the federal government to force insurance companies to provide birth control.

Yes, insurance premiums go up all the time. The more things they have to pay for, the higher those premiums go up. That is taking away from me because my employer will lower our coverage or ask for employee contributions when he can no longer afford the higher insurance rates. And if the Socialists decide insurance companies should pay for Viagra, plastic surgery and sex change operations, the premiums will go up so high no employer will be able to provide health insurance coverage.

I'm diabetic, and I have to pay for my own insulin which gets quite expensive. Now think for a minute: what would benefit the people more, the government forcing insurance to provide birth control, or the government forcing insurance to cover expensive medication for survival? Of course, we are talking about liberals here, so for them, it's politically expedient for them to have insurance companies provide recreational medications than it is necessary medications. And no, Limbaugh didn't tell me that, I'm telling you that.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#3644 Jan 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to know a lot about Rush for not listening to him. Of course, if you did listen to him, you would realize he never said any of those things. What he said is that it's ridiculous for the federal government to force insurance companies to provide birth control.
Yes, insurance premiums go up all the time. The more things they have to pay for, the higher those premiums go up. That is taking away from me because my employer will lower our coverage or ask for employee contributions when he can no longer afford the higher insurance rates. And if the Socialists decide insurance companies should pay for Viagra, plastic surgery and sex change operations, the premiums will go up so high no employer will be able to provide health insurance coverage.
I'm diabetic, and I have to pay for my own insulin which gets quite expensive. Now think for a minute: what would benefit the people more, the government forcing insurance to provide birth control, or the government forcing insurance to cover expensive medication for survival? Of course, we are talking about liberals here, so for them, it's politically expedient for them to have insurance companies provide recreational medications than it is necessary medications. And no, Limbaugh didn't tell me that, I'm telling you that.
Sorry to burst your bubble, xxx, but I DO listen to Limbaugh's show on my lunch hour. Not everyday, but pretty often. And he did say that Sandra Fluke is a "slut" who wants the taxpayers to pay for her to have sex. I heard him myself, so stop trying to kid me. You know what else I heard him say about Fluke during that same period? He said that if she wants him to pay for her birth control, she should post videos of herself having sex on the internet. That's the kind of lying, creepy pervert you are defending. And he was a major factor in your side losing the election. It's bad enough that he lives in the gutter, but he's dragging guys like you, and your candidates, down there with him.
serfs up

Kissimmee, FL

#3645 Jan 24, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to burst your bubble, xxx, but I DO listen to Limbaugh's show on my lunch hour. Not everyday, but pretty often. And he did say that Sandra Fluke is a "slut" who wants the taxpayers to pay for her to have sex. I heard him myself, so stop trying to kid me. You know what else I heard him say about Fluke during that same period? He said that if she wants him to pay for her birth control, she should post videos of herself having sex on the internet. That's the kind of lying, creepy pervert you are defending. And he was a major factor in your side losing the election. It's bad enough that he lives in the gutter, but he's dragging guys like you, and your candidates, down there with him.
56 million abortions. 45% single parents. Sexual diseases at highs in human history. Relationships between men and women strained to the max. What we see on television is like what men who work dangerous jobs or military watch in private situations. The D list slut pretending to suck the penis of the gay guy on commercial tv for comedy says it all. It was not even funny. The broad is my age. Is that what equality is? Damn, when we get our just desserts there are going to be a lot of angry women who will be compliant to survive.
the rest of us

Saint Paul, MN

#3646 Jan 24, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
It's bad enough that he lives in the gutter, but he's dragging guys like you, and your candidates, down there with him.
No, you immature, leftist dope the gutter belongs to the most corrupt, least transparent administration in the last 100 years. Thank God you are irrelevant in the real world.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#3647 Jan 24, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to burst your bubble, xxx, but I DO listen to Limbaugh's show on my lunch hour. Not everyday, but pretty often. And he did say that Sandra Fluke is a "slut" who wants the taxpayers to pay for her to have sex. I heard him myself, so stop trying to kid me. You know what else I heard him say about Fluke during that same period? He said that if she wants him to pay for her birth control, she should post videos of herself having sex on the internet. That's the kind of lying, creepy pervert you are defending. And he was a major factor in your side losing the election. It's bad enough that he lives in the gutter, but he's dragging guys like you, and your candidates, down there with him.
Please, Limbaugh had nothing to do with the elections. There is nobody that listens to Limbaugh that changed their minds about who they were going to vote for. What lost the election for the Republicans was the candidate, and the only reason for that is because he wasn't a conservative. A lot of people stayed home on both sides, but it seems that more Republicans stayed home than Democrats. There are a lot of people on the dole right now, and those who were came out to vote Democrat.

I didn't hear limbaugh say it was tax dollars, but apparently you are not alone in your accusation. Here is a Wall Street Journal that explains how Limbaugh was 100% correct:

"This idea that something that costs money to make can really be "free" to taxpayers or to anyone else is a deeply held left-wing belief. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another "welfare entitlement." That, Ms. Dowd insisted, "is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would."

Yet Ms. Dowd's own newspaper reports that ObamaCare "seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage," at a cost of "about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." If Ms. Dowd is correct and "tax dollars would not provide the benefit," what's the need for those "federal subsidies"? And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing "free" contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
Patriot

Longmont, CO

#3648 Jan 24, 2013
In the wake of Obama’s assault on law-abiding American citizens and Our Second Amendment–which is in my view another Act of War against Our Constitutional Republic - the Obama/Biden team plan to take a tour around the country to rally "lawlessness" - support for his un-Constitutional actions.

In actuality, Obama is making himself available for a false flag scuffing event–and if that doesn’t work, will direct that another false flag like Sandy Hook be ginned up to anger the sheeple known as Obama supporters and (the complicit) Congress to force the demand for gun control.

Don’t take the bait. Keep your powder dry and stay alert. Obama and his handlers are no longer afraid of putting this right in Our faces and daring US to act. Remember what Obama is diverting attention from: Benghazi, 2012 election theft, and of course, his ineligibility/foreign-agent status and all the fraud that keeps him in the White House.

We already know that the despicable follow in each other’s foot steps.

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3649 Jan 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, Limbaugh had nothing to do with the elections. There is nobody that listens to Limbaugh that changed their minds about who they were going to vote for. What lost the election for the Republicans was the candidate, and the only reason for that is because he wasn't a conservative. A lot of people stayed home on both sides, but it seems that more Republicans stayed home than Democrats. There are a lot of people on the dole right now, and those who were came out to vote Democrat.
I didn't hear limbaugh say it was tax dollars, but apparently you are not alone in your accusation. Here is a Wall Street Journal that explains how Limbaugh was 100% correct:
"This idea that something that costs money to make can really be "free" to taxpayers or to anyone else is a deeply held left-wing belief. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another "welfare entitlement." That, Ms. Dowd insisted, "is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would."
Yet Ms. Dowd's own newspaper reports that ObamaCare "seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage," at a cost of "about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." If Ms. Dowd is correct and "tax dollars would not provide the benefit," what's the need for those "federal subsidies"? And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing "free" contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
Stupid, ilogical, rightwingm lunucy logic. Preventing medical emergencies and complications by provideing proper medical attention saves billions of $!!!!!!!!!

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#3650 Jan 24, 2013
the rest of us wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you immature, leftist dope the gutter belongs to the most corrupt, least transparent administration in the last 100 years. Thank God you are irrelevant in the real world.
"The most corrupt, least transparent administration in the last 100 years." What does George W. Bush have to do with any of this?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#3651 Jan 24, 2013
rider wrote:
In America, the threat of terrorism is real, but it does not originate with Al Qaeda alone. The danger of homegrown right wing political violence is just as real.
This week's Time magazine cover story on "The Secret World of Extreme Militias" sounds an alarm that cannot be ignored. The threat of terrorism is real, but it does not originate with Al Qaeda alone. The danger of homegrown right wing political violence is just as real.
The Time article describes, in chilling terms, the proliferation of heavily armed, right wing militias engaged in paramilitary training to resist the perceived "tyranny" of government authority. Time notes that although the groups and individuals of the violent right reflect a "complex web" of ideologies, "among the most common convictions is that the Second Amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms -- is the Constitution's cornerstone, because only a well-armed populace can enforce its rights." For the militias and their ideological soulmates, "any form of gun regulation, therefore, is a sure sign of intent to crush other freedoms."
The connection between the gun control issue and the threat of violence from the right is an important, but largely untold, story. The militias' view that the Second Amendment protects our other rights, by ensuring the potential for armed insurrection against the government, is indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association.
For decades, NRA leaders have insisted that the Second Amendment is not only about duck hunting or self-defense against criminal attack. Rather, as one NRA official so colorfully put it, "the Second Amendment ... is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government." NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre received loud cheers when he told last year's Conservative Political Action Conference that our rights as Americans mean little unless we are ready to defend them against the government by force of arms: "Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it's guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people .... Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
Th It also is revealing that Richard Mack, one of the sheriffs recruited years ago by the NRA to challenge the Brady Bill in court, is now a hero of the violent right. In an interview with the Time reporter, Mack referred to federal agents as "America's gestapo".
Just curious... Why is it that those who steal guns, who then go and kill movie goers and children in school have never been a conservative NRA member? Ft Hood - Registered Democrat – Muslim Columbine - Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals. Virginia Tech - Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff - Registered Democrat Colorado Theater - Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal Connecticut School Shooter - Registered Democrat; hated Christians John Hinkley Jr. Hated Ronald Regan, Registered Democrat Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats Lynette "Squeaky " Fromme, Member of Charles Manson Cult All Liberal Democrats. Sirhan Sirhan Registered Democrat and Muslim as well as the Beltway Sniper. Facts are facts.

Since: Jan 13

Largo, FL

#3652 Jan 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, Limbaugh had nothing to do with the elections. There is nobody that listens to Limbaugh that changed their minds about who they were going to vote for. What lost the election for the Republicans was the candidate, and the only reason for that is because he wasn't a conservative. A lot of people stayed home on both sides, but it seems that more Republicans stayed home than Democrats. There are a lot of people on the dole right now, and those who were came out to vote Democrat.
I didn't hear limbaugh say it was tax dollars, but apparently you are not alone in your accusation. Here is a Wall Street Journal that explains how Limbaugh was 100% correct:
"This idea that something that costs money to make can really be "free" to taxpayers or to anyone else is a deeply held left-wing belief. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another "welfare entitlement." That, Ms. Dowd insisted, "is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would."
Yet Ms. Dowd's own newspaper reports that ObamaCare "seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage," at a cost of "about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." If Ms. Dowd is correct and "tax dollars would not provide the benefit," what's the need for those "federal subsidies"? And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing "free" contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
I disagree. I think Limbaugh had a lot to do with the election. And for that, I thank him from the bottom of my heart. You may be right that his regular listeners didn't change their minds about who to vote for.(and they probably never will. They don't proudly call themeslves "dittoheads" for nothing.)

But there are a lot of people in this country who sometimes vote for Democrats,and sometimes vote for Republicans. They are called "the middle". Most voters are not nearly as idealogical as you or me. They can go either way, depending on their perceptions in the months leading up to the election.

Rush often brags about how his show is the most listened to radio show in America. I think that's true. Fox News boasts that they are the most watched cable news network in America. I think that is true too. So here is my question: Where is their influence? Both Rush and Fox News advocated strongly for Romney, and constantly attacked Obama. Neither Rush nor Fox told any Republican voters to stay home.

My point is that if Rush or Fox really had the influence they think they have, then NO DEMOCRAT would ever get elected in this country. But consider this: In the last 20 years, we have had 7 presidential elections. In 5 out of those 7, the Democratic candidate has received more popular votes than the Republican candidate. Why? I think it is because the center tends to side with Democrats.

And I think in this last election cycle, Rush really screwed the GOP. He calls himself the "de facto leader of the Republican party". He says that Republican policy makers follow his lead.

So here is the problem. Rush is an uneducated, drug addited, draft-dodging pervert, whose only qualification is that he has a big mouth. And moderate people see him for what he is, and identify him with the Republican Party. I think that was an important component in the last election.
the rest of us

Saint Paul, MN

#3653 Jan 24, 2013
Calm Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. I think Limbaugh had a lot to do with the election....FART,BLAH,FART.... ..
And as you've repeatedly been told dumb liberal, NOBODY cares what you think, just like in your real life you're irrelevant.

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.

Punta Gorda Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On Your Side - Ken Amaro Answers Your Mail (Sep '07) Wed njsherrill 89
Debate: Marijuana - North Fort Myers, FL (Aug '10) May 17 cheyanne 20
News Smoke'n Pit sets the bar for barbecue in North ... May 8 al lindroth 1
Lisa Lowe May 3 LEO 477 2
News Sheriff: December shooting victim had loaded AK-47 (Jan '13) May 1 castASpell 13
North Port Pawn shops (Aug '10) Apr 29 Angry 14
Review: Dehdashti, Houman DDS - Houman Dehdasht... (May '09) Apr 29 Sheila Port Charl... 9
More from around the web

Punta Gorda People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]