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.

Are

Huntsville, AL

#6620 May 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>m
you stoned?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6621 May 2, 2013
Are wrote:
<quoted text>
you stoned?
I know your stoned because the SCOTUS case of McDonald v Chicago explained the 2nd amendment and the justification for incorporating it down to the State Level which the Modern Pseudo Liberals in Illinois refused to accept that its a constitutional right.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6622 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Teabaggers are whining about the lack of air traffic controllers, the white tours, military air shows being cancelled,NASA cuts.

Who cares what Woodward is?

So I'll take him at his word, even if the idea came from the white house the particulars were still established by congress:

ENTITLEMENT REFORMS & SAVINGS

&#8227;Same as House-passed bill, framework creates a 12-member Joint Committee
required to report legislation by November 23, 2011 that would produce a
proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5T over 10 years.

&#8227; Each chamber would consider Joint Committee proposal on an up-or-down
basis without any amendments by December 23, 2011.

&#8227; If Joint Committee’s proposal is enacted OR if a Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states, POTUS would be authorized to request a debt limit increase. Speaker John Boehner

Which they didn't do squat about for almost two years.

THAT'S why we blame congress, NOT because whose "idea" it was.

Thet accepted the concept to work on and just like everything else..........they failed miserably.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6623 May 3, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so lets review. You've already posted that sequestration was originated in the White House. You posted that more Republicans voted against it than Democrats. You posted that previously more Democrats voted against it than Republicans. I guess one out of three isn't so bad, huh?
Conservatives are upset that they didn't get the right cuts in the right places. Damn them to hell for that, right?
Exactly.

They wanted targeted cut cuts that actually help Americans.

Shrinking the federal SNAP (food stamp) program.

Canceling the Home Affordable Modification Program
Eliminating the $11.4 billion public-health fund in the Affordable Care Act
Trimming the Social Services Block Grant program (which funds, among other things, Meals on Wheels for seniors.)

Cuts to the DOT.

The bill also would have defunded some of the financial regulatory reforms passed in 2010. It would have slashed funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.(Of course)

As well as NO tax increases and no cuts for the military.

On a related note:

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks.

"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down.

The Lima plant is a study in how federal dollars affect local communities, which in turn hold tight to the federal dollars. The facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Jordan, a House conservative leader who has pushed for deep reductions in federal spending, supported the automatic cuts known as the sequester that require $42 billion to be shaved from the Pentagon's budget by the end of September. The military also has to absorb a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years, as required by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.

Still, said Jordan, it would be a big mistake to stop producing tanks.

"Look,(the plant) is in the 4th Congressional District and my job is to represent the 4th Congressional District, so I understand that," he said. "But the fact remains, if it was not in the best interests of the national defense for the United States of America, then you would not see me supporting it like we do."
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6624 May 3, 2013
Teabaggers pushing for spending cuts for everyone but their district and the Military Industrial Complex.
obummer

Oak Hill, WV

#6625 May 3, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
Teabaggers pushing for spending cuts for everyone but their district and the Military Industrial Complex.
Yet obama is doing nothing to cut military spending.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#6626 May 3, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
Teabaggers pushing for spending cuts for everyone but their district and the Military Industrial Complex.
yeeaahhh, Democrats NEVER do that.
LOL
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6627 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So the people responsible are those who leave their guns laying around? Of course, it's not the criminals fault. After all, the criminal has no ability to purchase or steal a firearm to commit murder.
You know, if only people would obey the speed limit, use turn signals, and allow themselves ample time to reach their destination, we would have no road fatalities either. If only people who had the money and ability to repay their loan, we wouldn't have had a housing crisis. If only people would have families they could afford, there would be little need for welfare. If only people would accept jobs that included medical coverage, we wouldn't need Commie Care.
But since people are by nature imperfect, we should legislate perfection. We've had such a successful record of doing so in the past.
It's been proposed years ago by responsible gun owners, it's simple and it's very easy to understand but most importantly it's the single most effective thing we can do! Yet, f-ing loons like you can't even get behind something as simple and effectual as this - you sorry-ass gunloons have no shame or sense of community – as just as long as you can play with your guns!
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6628 May 3, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been proposed years ago by responsible gun owners, it's simple and it's very easy to understand but most importantly it's the single most effective thing we can do! Yet, f-ing loons like you can't even get behind something as simple and effectual as this - you sorry-ass gunloons have no shame or sense of community – as just as long as you can play with your guns!
No, what we oppose is more government in our lives for a policy that won't do any good. Have background checks, there will still be more shootings. Limit clip size, there will still be more shootings. Stop all guns shows, there will still be more shootings.

Legal or not, guns aren't going anywhere in this country. All you can really do with laws is stop the good people from getting them. Like recreational narcotics, if the bad people want them, they find a way to get them.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6629 May 3, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
They wanted targeted cut cuts that actually help Americans.
Shrinking the federal SNAP (food stamp) program.
Canceling the Home Affordable Modification Program
Eliminating the $11.4 billion public-health fund in the Affordable Care Act
Trimming the Social Services Block Grant program (which funds, among other things, Meals on Wheels for seniors.)
Cuts to the DOT.
The bill also would have defunded some of the financial regulatory reforms passed in 2010. It would have slashed funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.(Of course)
As well as NO tax increases and no cuts for the military.
On a related note:
Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.
But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."
Kind of sounds like the billions DumBama wants to spend on Trains To Nowhere. LOL!
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6630 May 3, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Teabaggers are whining about the lack of air traffic controllers, the white tours, military air shows being cancelled,NASA cuts.
Who cares what Woodward is?
So I'll take him at his word, even if the idea came from the white house the particulars were still established by congress:
ENTITLEMENT REFORMS & SAVINGS
&#8227;Same as House-passed bill, framework creates a 12-member Joint Committee
required to report legislation by November 23, 2011 that would produce a
proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5T over 10 years.
&#8227; Each chamber would consider Joint Committee proposal on an up-or-down
basis without any amendments by December 23, 2011.
&#8227; If Joint Committee’s proposal is enacted OR if a Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states, POTUS would be authorized to request a debt limit increase. Speaker John Boehner
Which they didn't do squat about for almost two years.
THAT'S why we blame congress, NOT because whose "idea" it was.
Thet accepted the concept to work on and just like everything else..........they failed miserably.
So who's denying that Republicans wanted it? Of course we wanted it. We want any kind of spending cuts. But it's not our idea--it's DumBama's idea. That's the point.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6631 May 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
those who we support by letting them get away with offshoring their profits instead of paying those taxes
So what would you have them do, move out of the country? What does that solve?

We are not 17 trillion in debt because of offshoring profits. We are 17 trillion in debt because of ridiculous spending including social programs that able-bodied and minded are on.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6632 May 3, 2013
obummer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet obama is doing nothing to cut military spending.
I know.

He is only reducing the amout of increases, which is not a cut.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6633 May 3, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>yeeaahhh, Democrats NEVER do that.
LOL
Not that I have read, in that situation.

So, name one.

The only time I can recall is the bank bailouts where they were forced to take the money by both Bush and Obama, so they could coverup which banks should have been closed in the first place.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6634 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of sounds like the billions DumBama wants to spend on Trains To Nowhere. LOL!
Did the Surface Transportation Board or Federal Railroad Administration say they weren't needed?

Not that I recall.

Name one.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6635 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So who's denying that Republicans wanted it? Of course we wanted it. We want any kind of spending cuts. But it's not our idea--it's DumBama's idea. That's the point.
No, it's not.

Congress works on the details, Obama didn't decide where the cuts would be made, the teabagger congress did.

As usual, they failed miserably.

Poor teabagger
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6636 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what we oppose is more government in our lives for a policy that won't do any good. Have background checks, there will still be more shootings. Limit clip size, there will still be more shootings. Stop all guns shows, there will still be more shootings.
Legal or not, guns aren't going anywhere in this country. All you can really do with laws is stop the good people from getting them. Like recreational narcotics, if the bad people want them, they find a way to get them.
Is it painful to have friggen rocks in your head? Nothing will STOP shootings or criminal acts in a free society but we sure as hell can keep it on a minimal level ...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6637 May 3, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>What are you a comedian ...?
Wow! That is your substantive post that debunks mine?
Lmao!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6638 May 3, 2013
Nope wrote:
<quoted text>The point of the second amendment was to ensure that in absence of a large standing continental army the states could raise state militias to defend OUR country against the British who they figured would be coming back. And they did.

Nothing to do with the situation today.

And the third amendment was to prevent soldiers from being quartered in your house.
Really? Cause I can't seem to find anything about the British in the second amendment. I don't see anything restricting who the militia may be required to fight.
The second amendment was meant to last as long as the USA. Otherwise, it would say,"shall not be infringed until...".

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6639 May 3, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly.

They wanted targeted cut cuts that actually help Americans.

Shrinking the federal SNAP (food stamp) program.

Canceling the Home Affordable Modification Program
Eliminating the $11.4 billion public-health fund in the Affordable Care Act
Trimming the Social Services Block Grant program (which funds, among other things, Meals on Wheels for seniors.)

Cuts to the DOT.

The bill also would have defunded some of the financial regulatory reforms passed in 2010. It would have slashed funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.(Of course)

As well as NO tax increases and no cuts for the military.

On a related note:

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks.

"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down.

The Lima plant is a study in how federal dollars affect local communities, which in turn hold tight to the federal dollars. The facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Jordan, a House conservative leader who has pushed for deep reductions in federal spending, supported the automatic cuts known as the sequester that require $42 billion to be shaved from the Pentagon's budget by the end of September. The military also has to absorb a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years, as required by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.

Still, said Jordan, it would be a big mistake to stop producing tanks.

"Look,(the plant) is in the 4th Congressional District and my job is to represent the 4th Congressional District, so I understand that," he said. "But the fact remains, if it was not in the best interests of the national defense for the United States of America, then you would not see me supporting it like we do."
Heaven forbid we cut funding to programs that are laden with fraud and abuse.
That is the best thing that could happen to this country.

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 3 hr Say What 199
News American Outdoor Brands Corp: Time to Move On? 13 hr payme 11
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) 14 hr Sentry Watch 120
News Official Heckler And Koch 22Lr Replica Rifles (Jan '10) Mon okimar 5
News 'How many more tragedies' asks mayor, after 11-... Mon payme 1
News 'Veteran Second Amendment Act' under fire right... Mar 19 FormerParatrooper 7
News Artists Armed With Spray-Paint Cans Take Aim At... Mar 17 Get Out 2
More from around the web