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.

Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6579 May 2, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
"The automatic cuts were supposed to take effect in January, but the president and Congress agreed to delay them until March 1 to give themselves more time to work out a deal. Now, as the new deadline for sequestration draws closer, many Republicans blame the president. And though it’s true that the idea of sequestration originated in the White House, there would be no possibility of automatic cuts had members of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — not gone along with the idea."
http://factcheck.org/2013/02/the-obamaquester...
Wait a minute. That was too fast. Can factcheck repeat that line again?
"And though it’s true that the idea of sequestration originated in the White House"
What did you say?
"And though it’s true that the idea of sequestration originated in the White House"
"And though it’s true that the idea of sequestration originated in the White House"
"And though it’s true that the idea of sequestration originated in the White House"
Teabaggers never tell the whole story or the rest of the quote either.

In his book “The Price of Politics,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post wrote that it was, in fact, Obama’s then-director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors who brought the idea of sequestration to Senate.
That is the source of Republican claims that this is “the president’s sequester.”

"the idea"

"the idea"

"the idea"

"the idea"

Not the contents or procedures.

Republicans have repeatedly said the sequester was Obama’s idea, but they supported it early on and provided the votes needed to put it into law.

Now they whine.

Poor teabagger.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6580 May 2, 2013
That wrote:
<quoted text>was dumb - even for you!
Really? That's all you've got? Try answering the question!
Oh, I forgot, you run from answering. I'm still waiting on your example of a pro gun organization attempting to block or prevent prosecution of someone caught illegally trying to purchase a firearm. You said its the pro gun organizations behind the 44 of 15,000 being prosecuted for illegally attempting to purchase a firearm. Back that up with just one example please.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6581 May 2, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>Teabaggers never tell the whole story or the rest of the quote either.

In his book “The Price of Politics,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post wrote that it was, in fact, Obama’s then-director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors who brought the idea of sequestration to Senate.
That is the source of Republican claims that this is “the president’s sequester.”

"the idea"

"the idea"

"the idea"

"the idea"

Not the contents or procedures.

Republicans have repeatedly said the sequester was ObamaÂ’s idea, but they supported it early on and provided the votes needed to put it into law.

Now they whine.

Poor teabagger.
Bob and Rob answer to the knob! Do you really think they came up with the idea? Just because they moved forward with it, doesn't mean it was their idea. Even if it were their idea, do you think they moved forward with it, without his approval?
Aside from all that, please explain how your post proves sequestration to be a GOP idea and policy as you liberals keep claiming!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6582 May 2, 2013
How does that foot taste WSG?
He is

Huntsville, AL

#6583 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
How does that foot taste WSG?
not into the kinky action that you are.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6584 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob and Rob answer to the knob! Do you really think they came up with the idea? Just because they moved forward with it, doesn't mean it was their idea. Even if it were their idea, do you think they moved forward with it, without his approval?
Aside from all that, please explain how your post proves sequestration to be a GOP idea and policy as you liberals keep claiming!
Never said it was their idea. Policy? Yes.

Just posted comments and articles showing the spending hawk teabaggers, approving it, then whining about the legislation they obviously agree with.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6585 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
How does that foot taste WSG?
You tell me.

Still whining about teabagger supported spending cuts?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6586 May 2, 2013
He is wrote:
<quoted text>not into the kinky action that you are.
Still avoiding and deflecting, I see.
Get back to me, when you can look at yourself in the mirror.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6587 May 2, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>Never said it was their idea. Policy? Yes.

Just posted comments and articles showing the spending hawk teabaggers, approving it, then whining about the legislation they obviously agree with.
I see. Why don't you post the voting report card on it, so we can see how many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents voted for it?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6588 May 2, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>You tell me.

Still whining about teabagger supported spending cuts?
More deflection! What a shocker! Lmao!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6589 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
2 things you don't understand:
1. He posted a quote.
2. You don't even understand what you posted.
Straining your brain eh retard!?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6590 May 2, 2013
Normal, law-abiding, gun carrying citizens will not be affected by tighter legislation like comprehensive background checks ... No one is trying to take your guns away from you...unless you are mentally ill, or have a criminal background.
Using the logic that "criminals don't obey gun laws" is a useless oxymoron. Of course criminals don't obey the law, that’s why we call them criminals – duh!! But we still need the law, so that violators can be punished. And then there is the Moral justification? Really? How is gun control a moral issue?
Oh puhlezze, restrictions are placed on the “law abiding citizen” all the time, and it always will until you gunloons can figure out a way to catch the criminal before he acts! When was the last time that you caused an accident because you were driving at an unsafe speed – never? You see, me neither, but I still have to obey speed limits.
We need only use words like “reason,”“common sense,”“evidence,” and “intellectual honesty” to do the job.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6591 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. Why don't you post the voting report card on it, so we can see how many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents voted for it?

The House passed the bill without amendments by a margin of 257–167 at about 11 p. m. EST on January 1, 2013. 85 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted in favor while 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats were opposed.

At around 2 a.m. EST on January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the bill, by a margin of 89–8. 49 Democrats (and Democratic-caucusing Independents) and 40 Republicans voted in favor while 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against.

The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.

Which proves teabaggers were FOR it before they were AGAINST it.

Regardless, it has been teabaggers whining about spending cuts, the budget, the deficit, big government, etc. since day one.

They finally get them and they whine.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6592 May 2, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
More deflection! What a shocker! Lmao!
More whining! What a shocker! Lmao!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Hampton, VA

#6593 May 2, 2013
that wrote:
<quoted text>
is just BS. Who is defining civilized? Certainly not somebody who feels the need to own an assault weapon.
You assault me or my family I WILL assault you back. Don't be mad because I choose a full metal jacket over crying about it.
ooooh

Huntsville, AL

#6594 May 2, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>You assault me or my family I WILL assault you back. Don't be mad because I choose a full metal jacket over crying about it.
what a weenie.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6595 May 2, 2013
spocko wrote:
Normal, law-abiding, gun carrying citizens will not be affected by tighter legislation like comprehensive background checks ... No one is trying to take your guns away from you...unless you are mentally ill, or have a criminal background.
Using the logic that "criminals don't obey gun laws" is a useless oxymoron. Of course criminals don't obey the law, that’s why we call them criminals – duh!! But we still need the law, so that violators can be punished. And then there is the Moral justification? Really? How is gun control a moral issue?
Oh puhlezze, restrictions are placed on the “law abiding citizen” all the time, and it always will until you gunloons can figure out a way to catch the criminal before he acts! When was the last time that you caused an accident because you were driving at an unsafe speed – never? You see, me neither, but I still have to obey speed limits.
We need only use words like “reason,”“common sense,”“evidence,” and “intellectual honesty” to do the job.
More propaganda!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6596 May 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
More propaganda!
If the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons. Some scholars think this kind of reading of the Second Amendment means that “individuals may keep and bear ... whatever ‘arms’ they desire.” So, you really think our Constitution recognize your neighbor’s right to park a brand new M-1 Abrams main battle tank in his driveway? Should we permit gun shops to hold tent sales offering great low prices on military-grade flamethrowers and nerve-gas-tipped artillery shells? Must the U.S. Government allow you to carry a “suitcase nuke” to avoid violating your fundamental Constitutional rights, even if you might trip while carrying it and level a city block?
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6597 May 2, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Teabaggers never tell the whole story or the rest of the quote either.
In his book “The Price of Politics,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post wrote that it was, in fact, Obama’s then-director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors who brought the idea of sequestration to Senate.
That is the source of Republican claims that this is “the president’s sequester.”
"the idea"
"the idea"
"the idea"
"the idea"
Not the contents or procedures.
Republicans have repeatedly said the sequester was Obama’s idea, but they supported it early on and provided the votes needed to put it into law.
Now they whine.
Poor teabagger.
Who's whining? I don't hear any Republicans whining. In fact, most are celebrating because the world didn't come to an end like DumBama said it would. We celebrate that we cut so much money and nobody knew the difference. It furthers our concept that we can do just fine with a lot less government and spending.

Woodward is a leftist. Don't you remember all that nonsense with Bush? Factcheck (also known to lean pretty left) backed up Woodward's claims. It's not like I posted a Fox opinion piece or something.

Remember that the only reason we bring it up is because (once again) DumBama and the DemonCrats tried to blame Republicans. If not for that, we wouldn't bring the fact that it was DumBama's idea at all.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6598 May 2, 2013
spocko wrote:
Normal, law-abiding, gun carrying citizens will not be affected by tighter legislation like comprehensive background checks ... No one is trying to take your guns away from you...unless you are mentally ill, or have a criminal background.
Really? Need I post those New York stories again??? You know, where a newspaper listed and mapped all the citizens with registered firearms? Or the fact they are trying to confiscate guns and permits?

You must not follow Democrat politics too closely. There is no stopping point with liberals. They may say they want X, but once they get X, they move to Y, and then Z.

As I explained before, what happens if DumBama gets an all Democrat Congress and Senate to work with next election? Think they won't try to tax firearm owners into submission? Why not? They would have an entire list of people to go after. Like cigarettes, they can't stop you from having them, but if you do, it will cost you an arm and a leg. And when you get sick of paying through the nose, you surrender whatever it is that makes you happy if it's on the Democrats ship list.

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 Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban 9 hr Jagermann 200
News 'How many more tragedies' asks mayor, after 11-... 11 hr payme 3
News American Outdoor Brands Corp: Time to Move On? 12 hr payme 13
News Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by th... 15 hr jimwildrickjr 2
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Wed Sentry Watch 120
News Official Heckler And Koch 22Lr Replica Rifles (Jan '10) Mar 20 okimar 5
News 'Veteran Second Amendment Act' under fire right... Mar 19 FormerParatrooper 7
More from around the web