Area gun sales, fears rising

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: North Port Sun 7,569

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.

Full Story

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#5559 Feb 24, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
There go those crickets chirping again.
Some of these fools are amazing. You provide them with complete information and they claim it doesn’t explain anything. They need to be spoon fed information.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5560 Feb 24, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn’t explain anything. It lists all the of FFL holders which means all licensed dealers are listed. Do you need step by step explanation to understand anything? I provided you a link to EVERY FFL holder. You of course claim it’s useless.
We do NOT have over 100,000 individuals licensed to sell guns. Every liberal source takes the total number of FFL licenses without regard to license type. They assume every licensee sells guns. That’s simply not the case. Worse, the sources feed off misinformation from each other.
Many are C&R holders which can deal only in old arms. Most C&R holders are collectors, not resellers. Some FFL holders only provide transfer services and don’t sell anything but service.
You want it broken down so even an idiot can understand it? www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/121611-fire...
2010 there were 47,664 licensed dealers *NOT* over 100,000. That doesn’t mean more than 47,000 gun stores. Again, many license holders only provide transfer services. Contrary to what you believe the number of FFL licenses have dropped over the decades. There was a slight increase from 09 to 10. In 1990 there were 235,684 FFL holders, that dropped to the 47,664 in 2010.
This tries to explain the confusion. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/...
Even though they conclude the claim is mostly true they conclude there *as many as* 25,000 businesses selling guns. A long way from your false claim of 130,000.
You speak of fantasy; my numbers come directly from the ATF. Where do your numbers come from?
A little more info on FFL-03 C&R license holders. C&R FFL's (also called Crufflers) are NOT dealers in any way shape or form. They are collectors of curio and relic firearms only. An FFL-03 is NOT a license to do business in firearms. What the license does is keep the buyer from having to go through a background check every time they by a C&R firearm, and they can receive direct shipment of C&R firearms if bought out of state. http://www.cruffler.com/whatis.html
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#5561 Feb 24, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn’t explain anything. It lists all the of FFL holders which means all licensed dealers are listed. Do you need step by step explanation to understand anything? I provided you a link to EVERY FFL holder. You of course claim it’s useless.
We do NOT have over 100,000 individuals licensed to sell guns. Every liberal source takes the total number of FFL licenses without regard to license type. They assume every licensee sells guns. That’s simply not the case. Worse, the sources feed off misinformation from each other.
Many are C&R holders which can deal only in old arms. Most C&R holders are collectors, not resellers. Some FFL holders only provide transfer services and don’t sell anything but service.
You want it broken down so even an idiot can understand it? www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/121611-fire...
2010 there were 47,664 licensed dealers *NOT* over 100,000. That doesn’t mean more than 47,000 gun stores. Again, many license holders only provide transfer services. Contrary to what you believe the number of FFL licenses have dropped over the decades. There was a slight increase from 09 to 10. In 1990 there were 235,684 FFL holders, that dropped to the 47,664 in 2010.
This tries to explain the confusion. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/...
Even though they conclude the claim is mostly true they conclude there *as many as* 25,000 businesses selling guns. A long way from your false claim of 130,000.
You speak of fantasy; my numbers come directly from the ATF. Where do your numbers come from?
The dogs are barking but the caravan moves on. You can talk your gun-a-holic BS all the day long it still remains a fantasy stop embarrassing yourself, where do you thing the estimated 4 million ‘hot or illegal’ guns came form yemoron? The biggest source of illegal gun transactions, where criminals get guns, are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and straw-purchases at commercial gun dealers. According to a recent ATF report, there is a huge and problematic diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 200,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business. An absence of records makes it impossible for law enforcement to know the whereabouts of millions of firearms in circulation today because Federal law explicitly bars the ATF from establishing a database of retail firearms sales, and private gun sellers are not required to keep a paper trail of transactions.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#5562 Feb 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
A little more info on FFL-03 C&R license holders. C&R FFL's (also called Crufflers) are NOT dealers in any way shape or form. They are collectors of curio and relic firearms only. An FFL-03 is NOT a license to do business in firearms. What the license does is keep the buyer from having to go through a background check every time they by a C&R firearm, and they can receive direct shipment of C&R firearms if bought out of state. http://www.cruffler.com/whatis.html
And as usual you would be wrong ...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5563 Feb 24, 2013
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>Some of these fools are amazing. You provide them with complete information and they claim it doesnÂ’t explain anything. They need to be spoon fed information.
Precisely!
They have no interest in getting it right. Their focus is coming off as being right. Or, put another way, they are willing to do anything not to admit being proven wrong.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5564 Feb 24, 2013
Lmao! Is it just me, or does everyone see where Spoko's dyslexic run on sentences end, and his copy and paste of propaganda begins?

Then he follows up bydiscrediting a post without offering any proof. I guess everyone is supposed to take Spoko's word as the final authority. Lmao.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5565 Feb 24, 2013
Federal court says concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/ap...
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#5566 Feb 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Federal court says concealed gun permits not protected by 2nd Amendment
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/ap...
Has the NRA created a monster that we can’t slay? The Second Amendment does not protect, and never has, an individual's right to own firearms willy-nilly, its purpose, at the time, was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. Yes, how conveniently one forgets, the southern states wanted to preserve the “slave patrol militias” which morphed into the KKK.
We need changes not just in laws but also in social mores – just as we’ve stigmatized drunken driving. Not to mention other kinds of irresponsibility. Traffic safety works extremely well because of strict rules, laws, registration, licensing and strict enforcement. Apply the same concept to today’s sophisticated and powerful weaponry – it’s a no-brainer!
As a nation, we regulate fire exits, but not 100-round magazines. We shield youngsters in cinemas from violence – but only if it’s on the screen. We have a ratings system to protect children from nudity (it’s a real killer) or offensive language but not 100-round magazines ...

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#5567 Feb 24, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Has the NRA created a monster that we can’t slay? The Second Amendment does not protect, and never has, an individual's right to own firearms willy-nilly, its purpose, at the time, was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. Yes, how conveniently one forgets, the southern states wanted to preserve the “slave patrol militias” which morphed into the KKK.
We need changes not just in laws but also in social mores – just as we’ve stigmatized drunken driving. Not to mention other kinds of irresponsibility. Traffic safety works extremely well because of strict rules, laws, registration, licensing and strict enforcement. Apply the same concept to today’s sophisticated and powerful weaponry – it’s a no-brainer!
As a nation, we regulate fire exits, but not 100-round magazines. We shield youngsters in cinemas from violence – but only if it’s on the screen. We have a ratings system to protect children from nudity (it’s a real killer) or offensive language but not 100-round magazines ...
Your examples are not Constitutional rights.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#5568 Feb 24, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Has the NRA created a monster that we can’t slay? The Second Amendment does not protect, and never has, an individual's right to own firearms willy-nilly, its purpose, at the time, was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. Yes, how conveniently one forgets, the southern states wanted to preserve the “slave patrol militias” which morphed into the KKK.
We need changes not just in laws but also in social mores – just as we’ve stigmatized drunken driving. Not to mention other kinds of irresponsibility. Traffic safety works extremely well because of strict rules, laws, registration, licensing and strict enforcement. Apply the same concept to today’s sophisticated and powerful weaponry – it’s a no-brainer!
As a nation, we regulate fire exits, but not 100-round magazines. We shield youngsters in cinemas from violence – but only if it’s on the screen. We have a ratings system to protect children from nudity (it’s a real killer) or offensive language but not 100-round magazines ...
So what you are saying is that tough regulations and licensing makes a difference? I suppose you are for Voter-ID then.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#5569 Feb 24, 2013
The 2nd amendment revisited:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The United States is the most gun-obsessed of any modern societies. You can bet, when it’s time to defend gun rights, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is never far from being invoked.

One must understand that, back in the days, Negroes outnumbered whites for most of the south, and the state militia were used to both prevent and put down slave uprisings. History tells us that –slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of the Southern police state was the explicit job of the militia – as protected by the Second Amendment. Also, leading up to the Revolutionary War, British Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces, enticing many Southern slaves to flee northward. Ultimately, numerous freed slaves served in Gen. Washington’s army.

Originally, there were state-mandated militias nationwide. In the South these were called “slave patrols,” and were used to suppress slave uprisings, to keep them in chains on the plantation and to round up runaway slaves. Militia laws in the Southern states required most white men between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun and be a member of one of these militias. Southern states’ slave militia remained in place until the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th through 16th Amendments, when they converted to vigilante groups, the best known being the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Second Amendment remained intact, though its original purpose became obsolete.

Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment, as encouraged by Thomas Jefferson, was:“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
To appease the Southern states’ powerful slave-holding politicians, the language was edited and made unambiguous.

Madison subsequently changed the word “country” to “state” and rewrote the Second Amendment as thus:“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Madison could never have imagined that one day his slave patrol militia amendment would be used to protect the right of gun manufacturing corporations — now declared a person by our Supreme Court — aided and abetted by the NRA. The right-wing Supreme Court recently broke with centuries of precedent by deciding that the “militia” phrase was mere “throat-clearing” and that the right to keep and bear is an individual right.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5570 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that tough regulations and licensing makes a difference? I suppose you are for Voter-ID then.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...
for years since the 14th amendment the Second Amendment did not pretain to the states which the Second was the last amendment of the US Bill of Rights to be incorporated down to the state level which was done by the SCOTUS case of Mcdonald Vs Chicago in 2010.

McDonald v. Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5571 Feb 24, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Your examples are not Constitutional rights.
Not to mention, the Second Amendment is still in place for INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS to be capable of forming a State Militia. Just because we haven't had a recent need for the formation of a State Militia, does not mean we never will, or the Second Amendment is no longer relevant.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5572 Feb 24, 2013
There goes Spocko with his copy and paste propaganda again.
I do believe he failed to mention the KKK being Democrat in origin, didn't he?
Lmao! If only a liberal could come up with an original idea to post, and be able to back it up...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#5573 Feb 24, 2013
Spocko wrote:
The 2nd amendment revisited:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[10] The English Bill of Rights 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant.

Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[11] The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[12] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[13]

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[14] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[15] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional document, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.

he statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including)... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law,(Recital regarding the change of monarch)... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including)... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#5574 Feb 24, 2013
Spocko wrote:
The 2nd amendment revisited:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The United States is the most gun-obsessed of any modern societies. You can bet, when it’s time to defend gun rights, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is never far from being invoked.
One must understand that, back in the days, Negroes outnumbered whites for most of the south, and the state militia were used to both prevent and put down slave uprisings. History tells us that –slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of the Southern police state was the explicit job of the militia – as protected by the Second Amendment. Also, leading up to the Revolutionary War, British Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces, enticing many Southern slaves to flee northward. Ultimately, numerous freed slaves served in Gen. Washington’s army.
Originally, there were state-mandated militias nationwide. In the South these were called “slave patrols,” and were used to suppress slave uprisings, to keep them in chains on the plantation and to round up runaway slaves. Militia laws in the Southern states required most white men between the ages of 18 to 45 to own a gun and be a member of one of these militias. Southern states’ slave militia remained in place until the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th through 16th Amendments, when they converted to vigilante groups, the best known being the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Second Amendment remained intact, though its original purpose became obsolete.
Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment, as encouraged by Thomas Jefferson, was:“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
To appease the Southern states’ powerful slave-holding politicians, the language was edited and made unambiguous.
Madison subsequently changed the word “country” to “state” and rewrote the Second Amendment as thus:“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Madison could never have imagined that one day his slave patrol militia amendment would be used to protect the right of gun manufacturing corporations — now declared a person by our Supreme Court — aided and abetted by the NRA. The right-wing Supreme Court recently broke with centuries of precedent by deciding that the “militia” phrase was mere “throat-clearing” and that the right to keep and bear is an individual right.
The race card will not work.

Try door number three.

“Reduce immigration levels”

Since: Dec 06

Kings Mountain, NC

#5576 Feb 24, 2013
OBAMA to Bus In People for NRA Protest in Albany… Is This Even Legal?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/obama...

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#5577 Feb 24, 2013
Fed Up wrote:
OBAMA to Bus In People for NRA Protest in Albany… Is This Even Legal?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/obama...
Without any defense to Obama intended .

The busing in of supports and bored people is a time honored political trick that seldom has the political pay off worthy of the fuel expended.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#5578 Feb 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
A little more info on FFL-03 C&R license holders. C&R FFL's (also called Crufflers) are NOT dealers in any way shape or form. They are collectors of curio and relic firearms only. An FFL-03 is NOT a license to do business in firearms. What the license does is keep the buyer from having to go through a background check every time they by a C&R firearm, and they can receive direct shipment of C&R firearms if bought out of state. http://www.cruffler.com/whatis.html
I realize that. They’re not dealers but are included in Sucko’s numbers. It allows them to have qualified arms shipped directly to themselves .

I need to get my paperwork sent off. It's ready to go.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#5579 Feb 25, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The dogs are barking but the caravan moves on. You can talk your gun-a-holic BS all the day long it still remains a fantasy stop embarrassing yourself, where do you thing the estimated 4 million ‘hot or illegal’ guns came form yemoron? The biggest source of illegal gun transactions, where criminals get guns, are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and straw-purchases at commercial gun dealers. According to a recent ATF report, there is a huge and problematic diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 200,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business. An absence of records makes it impossible for law enforcement to know the whereabouts of millions of firearms in circulation today because Federal law explicitly bars the ATF from establishing a database of retail firearms sales, and private gun sellers are not required to keep a paper trail of transactions.
What is wrong with you? I’m providing you with information directly from the government. Your claim of 130,000 gun dealers in the US is way off base. Rather than admit you were wrong you simply move on attempting to utilize other “facts” you’ve pulled from your backside.

You claim reference to an ATF report, care to provide a link? I bet you won’t since it doesn’t exist.

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
On Your Side - Ken Amaro Answers Your Mail (Mar '08) 9 hr melissasawlkristof 86
Review: House Call Vet - Scott Wouk DVM (Oct '09) Dec 14 goldenluver 12
Tell Mel: Don't cross Honest Ziggy's in North F... (Feb '10) Dec 9 shigs 75
Ronnetta Sasher Dec 6 udkm 2
Tax Payers Upset Over Penny Tax in Charlotte Co... (May '14) Nov 28 MelT 14
Ken Amaro Answers Your Mail (Dec '07) Nov 27 Fernandina Beach 32
Our Hope Center Holding Woman's Dog Hostage (Mar '12) Nov '14 Princess 7
Punta Gorda Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Punta Gorda People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Punta Gorda News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Punta Gorda

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:37 am PST

Bleacher Report 9:37AM
The Pack Has Not Fared Well at Raymond James Stadium
Bleacher Report 4:17 PM
Previewing Vikings vs. Dolphins
Bleacher Report 9:37 PM
Titans Stay on Pace for Potential No. 1 Pick
NBC Sports 5:14 AM
Friday morning one-liners
NBC Sports11:45 AM
Just like old (sad) times: Buccaneers double-digit home underdogs vs. Packers