Area gun sales, fears rising

Area gun sales, fears rising

There are 7566 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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6767 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
Poor teabaggers.
Still thinking "Someone is gonna come and take my guns".
So why is there such a teabagger frenzy of buying them?
Why would you purchase something you are certain is getting taken away?
Whoops, forgot.
Teabagger logic.
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]

[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>arms<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."

- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6768 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]
[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>arms<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."
- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
Good tip.

Just show them that when they show up for your guns.

Poor teabagger.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6769 May 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And no matter how many times you repeat this same BS....it will NEVER be true.
I'm afraid it is buddy ...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6770 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
Poor teabaggers.
Still thinking "Someone is gonna come and take my guns".
So why is there such a teabagger frenzy of buying them?
Why would you purchase something you are certain is getting taken away?
Whoops, forgot.
Teabagger logic.
Yes it is, because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away.

But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people. Liberal logic:

How do we get states to comply with our control freak desires without stepping on Constitutional States Rights? We stop their highway funding.

How do we get people to stop using tobacco products without going through Congress or Senate and in the process, losing a lot of votes? We tax tobacco products.

How do we force people to purchase a healthcare plan they can or cannot afford? We fine them if they don't.

So DumBama and the other Communists are able to get all guns registered with the federal government. So how do the Communists stop people from buying firearms or using them without stepping on Second Amendment rights? We fine and tax them. Now that we have a list of people and the firearms they own, we simply put an annual tax on them with the taxes increasing every year. We tax ammunition so high that it's unaffordable to shoot, and create federal laws prohibiting people from reloading their own shells.

See, there is no need for the liberals to send armies to every American door to confiscate firearms. They force people to surrender the known arms they have in order to avoid taxation and fines. Many citizens will do it all on their own.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6771 May 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away.
But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people. Liberal logic:
How do we get states to comply with our control freak desires without stepping on Constitutional States Rights? We stop their highway funding.
How do we get people to stop using tobacco products without going through Congress or Senate and in the process, losing a lot of votes? We tax tobacco products.
How do we force people to purchase a healthcare plan they can or cannot afford? We fine them if they don't.
So DumBama and the other Communists are able to get all guns registered with the federal government. So how do the Communists stop people from buying firearms or using them without stepping on Second Amendment rights? We fine and tax them. Now that we have a list of people and the firearms they own, we simply put an annual tax on them with the taxes increasing every year. We tax ammunition so high that it's unaffordable to shoot, and create federal laws prohibiting people from reloading their own shells.
See, there is no need for the liberals to send armies to every American door to confiscate firearms. They force people to surrender the known arms they have in order to avoid taxation and fines. Many citizens will do it all on their own.
Stop your hysterics no one is coming for your guns ...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6772 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the satisfaction of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]
[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>arms<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."
- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.
Just keep on practicing your copy and paste sooner or later you'll find something that actually makes sense - ye retard!
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6773 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop your hysterics no one is coming for your guns ...
And why is that? Because Republicans (and some Democrats) stopped the process in it's tracks. Imagine an all Democrat federal government with liberal judges. Think they wouldn't try to come after our firearms then?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#6774 May 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is, because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away.
But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people. Liberal logic:
How do we get states to comply with our control freak desires without stepping on Constitutional States Rights? We stop their highway funding.
How do we get people to stop using tobacco products without going through Congress or Senate and in the process, losing a lot of votes? We tax tobacco products.
How do we force people to purchase a healthcare plan they can or cannot afford? We fine them if they don't.
So DumBama and the other Communists are able to get all guns registered with the federal government. So how do the Communists stop people from buying firearms or using them without stepping on Second Amendment rights? We fine and tax them. Now that we have a list of people and the firearms they own, we simply put an annual tax on them with the taxes increasing every year. We tax ammunition so high that it's unaffordable to shoot, and create federal laws prohibiting people from reloading their own shells.
See, there is no need for the liberals to send armies to every American door to confiscate firearms. They force people to surrender the known arms they have in order to avoid taxation and fines. Many citizens will do it all on their own.
"because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away".

Exactly, so why all the teabagger whining about gun confiscation?

"But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people".

As republicans created, passed and signed into law, the "Patriot" Act, which teabaggers defended?

Which violates several aspects of the constitution.

Which also allows for ..........seizing your guns.

The great teabagger response to people who criticized these violations "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

Now teabaggers whine about the same policies they supported and defended.

Poor teabaggers.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6775 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"because tea bagger logic (as you call it) tells is it's impossible for the federal government to take our firearms away".
Exactly, so why all the teabagger whining about gun confiscation?
"But Democrats are control freaks no different than dictators or communists. They thrive off controlling people".
As republicans created, passed and signed into law, the "Patriot" Act, which teabaggers defended?
Which violates several aspects of the constitution.
Which also allows for ..........seizing your guns.
The great teabagger response to people who criticized these violations "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
Now teabaggers whine about the same policies they supported and defended.
Poor teabaggers.
The Patriot Act does not allow government to "seize your guns." More left-wing propaganda. Furthermore, the Democrats had full control of the federal government for two years, yet not one made mention of rescinding the Patriot Act. It's still going on.

So do tell: how did this Patriot Act violate your Constitutional rights? How about members of your family, your friends, your neighbors?

Truth of the matter is that the Patriot Act affected few if any people. But I would be willing to bet you that people you do know (if not yourself) have been victimized by the virtual and physical strip searches at the airport implemented by DumBama. I'm sure you have no problem with that.

I just explained how government "can" confiscate your weapons via taxation and fines. Sorry if you didn't follow.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6776 May 24, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Good tip.
Just show them that when they show up for your guns.
Poor teabagger.
"William Henry testified substantially as follows:

"I arrived at Bethlehem on the evening of the 6th of March, 1799. We had heard that there was a party of men would collect, for the purpose of rescuing the prisoners who were there in custody of the marshal; in consequence of that, I went to assist the marshal, and, if possible, prevail on the people to desist. I was one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Northampton. About ten o' clock on the morning of the 7th, two men, with arms, arrived at the tavern where we were; who, when inquired of by the marshal as to their intention in coming armed, appeared to be diffident about answer; after first saying that they came upon a shooting frolic, one of them said they were come in order to see what was best to be done for the country. After that, came in several others, armed and on horseback, two of them in uniform, with swords and pistols...."

"...I also walked out for the same purpose, requesting them to withdraw, and not appear in arms in order to obstruct the process of the United States laws. They answered, that they were freemen, and might go where they pleased with their arms. I told them that they ran great risk by appearing in arms for such a purpose as I feared they were come. They came in a number, but I don t know how many particularly, as they mixed among the crowd. We requested them to deliver up their arms; but they refused. I also, at the same time, told one of them that it would be best for him to surrender himself, and not oppose the process; the others gave me answer, that they had come to accompany their friend, and to see that no injury was done to him. After this I returned into the lower back room of the house; by this time there were a number more collected round the house, but mostly armed. I don't recollect whether it was before these three men arrived, or not, that the marshal had sent off four men of his posse in order to meet the men with arms who were coming forward; and after we were up stairs three men arrived as a deputation from the armed body, making inquiry as to the intention of the marshal in taking these prisoners; with these three men, the four deputed by the marshal had returned from the armed body that was the other side of the bridge, in order to learn the marshal's object. The marshal assured them of the legality of the process, and reasoned with them as to the consequences of opposition, or threats to him, or preventing him from executing his duty; but I believe he liberated the two men that were first put in confinement, and returned them their guns. During the time that these two men were in confinement, we examined their guns, and found them loaded...."

- TRIAL OF THE NORTHAMPTON INSURGENTS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT PHILADELPHIA, 1799-1800, James Iredell, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6777 May 25, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid it is buddy ...
So how is it that everywhere "the people" is mentioned in the USC and the BOR it refers to the individual, but when mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it all of a sudden means a collective right???

That would be like saying you only have the freedom of speech when assembled in a group, or you can only practice the religion of your choosing when part of a congregation....which is of course bullshit.

Sorry pal. No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#6779 May 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The CourtÂ’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#6780 May 25, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
Furthermore, the Democrats had full control of the federal government for two years,
Who leads the House, Pinocchio?

Are you required to lie every day as part of your parole?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6781 May 25, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is that? Because Republicans (and some Democrats) stopped the process in it's tracks. Imagine an all Democrat federal government with liberal judges. Think they wouldn't try to come after our firearms then?
Huh, it requires a constitutional amendment ye moron!!!!!!!!!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6782 May 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is it that everywhere "the people" is mentioned in the USC and the BOR it refers to the individual, but when mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it all of a sudden means a collective right???
That would be like saying you only have the freedom of speech when assembled in a group, or you can only practice the religion of your choosing when part of a congregation....which is of course bullshit.
Sorry pal. No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.
Huh? You retarded?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6783 May 25, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? You retarded?
Your typical repsonse EVERY TIME your argument has been smashed to bits. How about responding to the point made, chickenshit?
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6784 May 25, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh, it requires a constitutional amendment ye moron!!!!!!!!!
No, it would require agenda driven Justices to interpret the Constitution the way they want. When have Democrats ever cared about what the Constitution says anyway?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#6785 May 25, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is that? Because Republicans (and some Democrats) stopped the process in it's tracks. Imagine an all Democrat federal government with liberal judges. Think they wouldn't try to come after our firearms then?
Sounds to me like you want to protect the Constitution... well, the parts that you like anyway!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#6786 May 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is it that everywhere "the people" is mentioned in the USC and the BOR it refers to the individual, but when mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it all of a sudden means a collective right???
That would be like saying you only have the freedom of speech when assembled in a group, or you can only practice the religion of your choosing when part of a congregation....which is of course bullshit.
Sorry pal. No matter loud you scream or stomp your feet, the 2nd Amendment never was and never will be a collective right. You lose. The Founders AND the SCOTUS say so.
We let's see....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....."

Seems pretty plural to me.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#6787 May 25, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it would require agenda
Who leads the House, Pinocchio?

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 Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 4 hr WasteWater 1,597
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 5 hr WasteWater 1,175
News Experts recommend several measures to reduce fi... 11 hr payme 6
News Legislators criticize Healey's assault weapons ... Jul 27 Get Out 6
News A Powerful and Pragmatic Approach to Criminal J... Jul 27 Enough Already 1
News Pam Frampton: America: shot through the heart, ... Jul 27 Watchdog 1
News Letter: Second Amendment should be abolished Jul 23 Prep-for-Dep 6
More from around the web