Area gun sales, fears rising

Area gun sales, fears rising

There are 7574 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.

Rebel Against Tyranny

Fruitport, MI

#5302 Feb 16, 2013
Map of incidents where guns were used by regular citizens to defend lives.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

Two points about the map.

First, the map is not comprehensive. Criminals will often flee the scene when they discover that their intended target has a gun. With no shots fired, no injuries, and no suspect in custody, news organizations may report nothing at all. Thus, it is important to remember that news reports can only provide us with an imperfect picture of defensive gun use in America.

Second, when a citizen is able to shoot an attacker or hold a rapist or robber until the police arrive, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented because if the culprit had not been stopped, he could have targeted other citizens as well. The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.

As the above map clearly illustrates, firearms HAVE ​been used to save lives. Politicians, IF they *actually* care about people's safety (rather than about increasing their own power) should be a little more mindful when it comes to legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to have access to guns.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#5304 Feb 16, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it was a free for all with no oversight what so ever which I blame alot of it on the Clinton Adminstration, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Republican Majority Controlled Congress & the Bush adminstration who also carried on with the same policies.
Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotpro...
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
&#9632; The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
&#9632; Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
&#9632; Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
&#9632; Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
&#9632; The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
&#9632; Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
&#9632; Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
&#9632; Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
&#9632; The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
&#9632; An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
&#9632; Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-t...
Great post Indy. I'll keep that in my Housing Crisis folder.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#5305 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You keep insisting that government did something when they actually didn't do anything... in fact, they reduced regulations.
You keep injecting your opinion in deference to the facts only because it makes your political point.
Banks like FITB are those like Merrill, BoA and Citi wanted to buy badly because their books were clean, they had good cash flow and they had a strong capital ratio that offset those institutions that decided to get greedy and couldn't raise enough money to cover the outstanding loans.
Government didn't make them greedy, capitalism did. So please, blame the right people for the crime.
Wrong. Banks don't back subprime loans. They sell most of those loans off. In order for banks to sell those loans off, they have to be made within the guidelines of the secondary market which for the most part was Fanny and Freddy. You are correct that F and F dropped their criteria several times before the collapse. In fact, Republicans were so worried about it they wanted to create a committee just to watch over F and and F, but the Democrats fought hard to beat them down. The Democrats (like Republicans) knew that we were heading for a disaster, but to put a leash on F and F would have an impact on their constituents such as lower income people and minorities.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#5306 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>What you're looking for is selective government.
Again, Somalia is the best option to create that utopia. What you want in America is the ability to interpret what you want.
Doesn't everybody? But no, I want to have a government that is described in the original US Constitution. That means no Church and State, no affirmative action, no Constitutionally protected abortions, and of course, no gay marriage.

In the beginning, states were to operate like miniature countries, and only come together for national matters. Healthcare is not a national matter. Retirement is not a national matter. Government cars, air conditioners, broadcast stations, midnight basketball courts, housing, food and free cell phones are not national matters.

But since we didn't follow the intent of our founders, we are 16 trillion in debt and growing mostly due to social programs. Nearly half of the people in this country rely partially or totally on support of our federal government. And no, it's not because of the way I wish to read our Constitution. It's in the words of our founders.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5308 Feb 16, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't everybody? But no, I want to have a government that is described in the original US Constitution. That means no Church and State, no affirmative action, no Constitutionally protected abortions, and of course, no gay marriage.
In the beginning, states were to operate like miniature countries, and only come together for national matters. Healthcare is not a national matter. Retirement is not a national matter. Government cars, air conditioners, broadcast stations, midnight basketball courts, housing, food and free cell phones are not national matters.
But since we didn't follow the intent of our founders, we are 16 trillion in debt and growing mostly due to social programs. Nearly half of the people in this country rely partially or totally on support of our federal government. And no, it's not because of the way I wish to read our Constitution. It's in the words of our founders.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison
Really son? Then you're saying debt really is ok. After all, it was Jefferson who made the Louisiana Purchase. It was Jefferson who created the public obligation (debt) in order to complete that purchase. In fact, Jefferson didn't believe the purchase would con Constitutional. And this WAS a social program!

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue...

"...Jefferson did not learn about the historic deal until July 3, and did not receive the official documents until July 14. There was little opposition at home. The Spanish, however, objected, saying France did not have clear title and had promised never to sell Louisiana to a third party. But Spain's protest did not have French support, and Secretary of State James Madison produced a letter from Spain's foreign minister saying, in effect, that the United States could buy anything it wanted from France as a result of the retrocession.

Jefferson also worried about the constitutionality of the acquisition, for the Constitution did not specifically grant the federal government the authority to acquire more territory, and he considered an amendment to the Constitution.

But Napoleon was becoming impatient and threatened to void the treaty. Speed was now essential to complete the deal. Jefferson went along with his advisers and dropped the idea of a constitutional amendment and pushed for ratification by the October 30 deadline. The Senate did so on October 20 by a vote of twenty-four to seven. The next day in Washington, the Americans and the French envoy exchanged ratified copies of the treaty.

By November 3, therefore, both houses of Congress had passed legislation authorizing the President to take possession of Louisiana and to create stock for its purchase from France...."

Get to know your history son instead of trying to create a lie about America.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#5309 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Really son? Then you're saying debt really is ok. After all, it was Jefferson who made the Louisiana Purchase. It was Jefferson who created the public obligation (debt) in order to complete that purchase. In fact, Jefferson didn't believe the purchase would con Constitutional. And this WAS a social program!
It was a social program??? WTF do you get that from? How is purchasing land a social program? Do you know what a social program is?

Nice try though; comparing the Louisiana purchase to Obma phones. I've seen it all now.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5311 Feb 16, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a social program??? WTF do you get that from? How is purchasing land a social program? Do you know what a social program is?
Nice try though; comparing the Louisiana purchase to Obma phones. I've seen it all now.
lol! Your opinion... AGAIN... AS USUAL...

You keep putting politics first.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/20c.asp

"20c. Westward Expansion: The Louisiana Purchase

Jefferson's plans for the nation depended upon western expansion and access to international markets for American farm products. This vision was threatened, however, when France regained control of Louisiana. Napoleon, who had now risen to power in the French Revolution, threatened to block American access to the important port of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. New American settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains depended upon river transport to get their goods to market since overland trade to the east was expensive and impractical.

Blocking American access to New Orleans was such a grave threat to American interests that President Jefferson considered changing his traditional foreign policy stance to an anti-French alliance with the British. At the same time that he sent diplomats to France to bargain for continued trade access along the Mississippi, he also sent diplomats to Britain to pursue other policy options. James Monroe, the top person negotiating in Paris, was empowered to purchase New Orleans and West Florida for between two and ten million dollars.

Surprisingly, however, Napoleon offered much more. He was militarily overextended and needing money to continue his war against Britain. Knowing full well that he could not force Americans out of the land France possessed in North America, Napoleon offered all of Louisiana to the U.S. for 15 million dollars. The massive territory stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and more than doubled the size of the United States.

Napoleon's asking price worked out to be about four cents an acre.

The deal was struck in April 1803, but it brought a good deal of controversy. While American development in the 19th century depended on western expansion, it also raised controversial issues that might lead to the disunion of the United States. Some New England Federalists, for example, began to talk of seceding from the U.S. since their political power was dramatically reduced by the purchase.

Further, Jefferson had clearly not followed his own strict interpretation of the Constitution. Federalist critics howled that the Constitution nowhere permitted the federal government to purchase new land. Jefferson was troubled by the inconsistency, but in the end decided that the Constitution's treaty-making provisions allowed him room to act.

Most of the Senate agreed and the Louisiana Purchase easily passed 26 to 6. The dramatic expansion also contradicted Jefferson's commitment to reduce the national debt as swiftly as possible. Although 15 million dollars was a relatively small sum for such a large amount of land, it was still an enormous price tag for the modest federal budget of the day.

The Louisiana Purchase demonstrates Jefferson's ability to make pragmatic political decisions. Although contrary to some of his central principles, guaranteeing western expansion was so important to Jefferson's overall vision that he took bold action...."
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5312 Feb 16, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a social program??? WTF do you get that from? How is purchasing land a social program? Do you know what a social program is?
Nice try though; comparing the Louisiana purchase to Obma phones. I've seen it all now.
lol! I noticed you decided NOT to address the Constitutional issue you claim you want to fall back on.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#5313 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I noticed you decided NOT to address the Constitutional issue you claim you want to fall back on.
Do tell, what Constitutional issue are you referring to?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5314 Feb 16, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell, what Constitutional issue are you referring to?
I wish you'd offer something more concrete than your opinions son.

You seem to have a real problem with that.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#5315 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I wish you'd offer something more concrete than your opinions son.
You seem to have a real problem with that.
That's not an opinion--that's a question. Maybe in public school they considered that an opinion.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5316 Feb 16, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not an opinion--that's a question. Maybe in public school they considered that an opinion.
lol! Yeah, you're probably right.

I guess you simply can't stand having your opinions trumped by history that you have this need to avoid subjects you bring up and find smaller battles to win.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#5317 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I hear Nevada has more houses than people to rent to.
No Nv is building lots of new houses

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#5318 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Your opinion... AGAIN... AS USUAL...
You keep putting politics first.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/20c.asp
"20c. Westward Expansion: The Louisiana Purchase
Jefferson's plans for the nation depended upon western expansion and access to international markets for American farm products. This vision was threatened, however, when France regained control of Louisiana. Napoleon, who had now risen to power in the French Revolution, threatened to block American access to the important port of New Orleans on the Mississippi River. New American settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains depended upon river transport to get their goods to market since overland trade to the east was expensive and impractical.
Blocking American access to New Orleans was such a grave threat to American interests that President Jefferson considered changing his traditional foreign policy stance to an anti-French alliance with the British. At the same time that he sent diplomats to France to bargain for continued trade access along the Mississippi, he also sent diplomats to Britain to pursue other policy options. James Monroe, the top person negotiating in Paris, was empowered to purchase New Orleans and West Florida for between two and ten million dollars.
Surprisingly, however, Napoleon offered much more. He was militarily overextended and needing money to continue his war against Britain. Knowing full well that he could not force Americans out of the land France possessed in North America, Napoleon offered all of Louisiana to the U.S. for 15 million dollars. The massive territory stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and more than doubled the size of the United States.
Napoleon's asking price worked out to be about four cents an acre.
The deal was struck in April 1803, but it brought a good deal of controversy. While American development in the 19th century depended on western expansion, it also raised controversial issues that might lead to the disunion of the United States. Some New England Federalists, for example, began to talk of seceding from the U.S. since their political power was dramatically reduced by the purchase.
Further, Jefferson had clearly not followed his own strict interpretation of the Constitution. Federalist critics howled that the Constitution nowhere permitted the federal government to purchase new land. Jefferson was troubled by the inconsistency, but in the end decided that the Constitution's treaty-making provisions allowed him room to act.
Most of the Senate agreed and the Louisiana Purchase easily passed 26 to 6. The dramatic expansion also contradicted Jefferson's commitment to reduce the national debt as swiftly as possible. Although 15 million dollars was a relatively small sum for such a large amount of land, it was still an enormous price tag for the modest federal budget of the day.
The Louisiana Purchase demonstrates Jefferson's ability to make pragmatic political decisions. Although contrary to some of his central principles, guaranteeing western expansion was so important to Jefferson's overall vision that he took bold action...."
Do you really enjoy making a fool out of yourself everyday?????

Tell us again how the burden of proof rest on the defense..........LOL
Rebel Against Tyranny

Fruitport, MI

#5319 Feb 16, 2013
Do you know what weapon that's legal to own, and would remain legal even if any of the proposed gun restriction proposals so far were to be enacted?



I want TWO!

(in Russian accent) Stereo...40 millimeters per channel, babycakes! LOL!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#5320 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I wish you'd offer something more concrete than your opinions son.
You seem to have a real problem with that.
Are you talking about your claim that the burden of proof in a court of law rest on the defense???
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5321 Feb 16, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really enjoy making a fool out of yourself everyday?????
Tell us again how the burden of proof rest on the defense..........LOL
You sure enjoy making moron looks far superior to you son.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5322 Feb 16, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about your claim that the burden of proof in a court of law rest on the defense???
Too bad you refuse to read son. You would learn something.

Then again, you really aren't interested in in learning a thing, son.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#5323 Feb 16, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about your claim that the burden of proof in a court of law rest on the defense???
Actually no son. OTOH, it's already proven to be true.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#5324 Feb 16, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You sure enjoy making moron looks far superior to you son.
Really???

Still waiting for you to show us where you ever proved me wrong..........LOL

But I have a list of times and places I proved you wrong..........

Like you classic lie when you claimed that the burden of proof rest on the defense..........

Or how about your claim you had evidence that Zim broke a law and then claim the body of the black punk proved that Zim broke a law..........ROTFLMAO

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
docks in decay May 19 RODSMITH 1
Jada Webb Walgreen's in Port Charlotte May 16 BIG TRUCK 1
Jada Webb Walgreen's in Port Charlotte May 8 Mitch 3
News Mandatory evacuations issued for parts of SWFL (Sep '17) May 8 Grandma 7
News On Your Side - Ken Amaro Answers Your Mail (Mar '08) Apr '18 Wayne Hopper 131
News On Your Side - Ken Amaro Answers Your Mail (Nov '07) Apr '18 Mocquita 80
Ronnetta Sasher Apr '18 Concerned Human B... 1

Punta Gorda Jobs

Personal Finance

Punta Gorda Mortgages