Terry, President Obama has issued 144 executive orders. That pales in comparison to President George W. Bush's 291; President Reagan's 381; President Nixon's 346; and President Eisenhower's 484.

@David,
It's NOT the grand total NUMBER of orders, but the SUBJECTS and METHODS addressed that are the REAL cause for concern.

NOW if he would just “executive order” the creation and passage of a budget…

Once again, a candidate that ran on being “different” than the LAST holder of the office really needs to stop using as a defense that I’m doing what the guy I REPLACED did…

John B., I had no problem with President Obama having those children behind him. It was a perfect way to remind us that 20 children were massacred on December 14. I realize that there are folks who would conveniently like to forget that massacre ever happened.

David:
Of course you had no problem for obvious reasons...and I have four kids so I don't need you to judge my lack of sensitivity as you perceive it.

Some people find fault with anything Obama does. If he has an itch on his check & scratches it, some conservative will insist he was flashing a gang sign to his homies.
Relax, in four years you will be rid of him. If you want a conservative to replace him, you had better stop just complaining & obstructing & start saying & doing something positive that makes sense to America otherwise you may get a replacement that continues the progress that Barack has begun.
Whether you like it, or not. Change IS coming to America.

Pawns? Naaaaaaaaaa shields is a better word.

m mirra....and if Obama took a dump in a liberals Cheerios they would swear it was the best bowl of cereal they ever ate....so it works both ways. At this point I'm looking for someone who will bring both parties together for the good of everyone I don't care what party they come from..Obama has failed miserably and I'm tired of hearing all of the excuses. He won this election by 3 million votes....would it be fair to say we are a nation divided? I think so...........

John, President Obama won re-election by 4,970,508 votes.

Hardly a landslide David..........but thanks for the correction.

David- Your number is indeed correct. That number also happens to be how many Obama phones were distributed in the 6 months prior to the election.

I don't know who DAVID BROWN is, but it's people like him that make me believe the world is filled with idiots and living proof that IQ and shoe size can be comparable..

Sort of out of bounds as David is NOT an idiot, but there are interesting perspectives along the road to his positions...

If this press conference had been led by Romney, at the direction of the NRA and gun lobby, instead of children representing the lives lost, there would be a big display of fire power.

Because the people who cry out for "restrictions" have no real idea what the item they are trying to restrict actually is...

Personally, I have absolutely NO use for a Priuis but I have no desire to restrict or ban them for others.

Would have been great if the media had a question and answer time with those kids, minus the coaching from their parents. It was a photo op and not much more. The NRA hit the nail on the head when they asked about the ARMED GUARDS at obama's kid's school. It was just as bad to have those kids there as the NRA's advertisement. shame on them all.

Jim, the NRA apparently forgot that Secret Service protection is a perquisite that belongs to the minor children of our Presidents. In fact, four days before leaving office, President George W. Bush signed a directive authorizing the Secret Service to provide a period of extended protection for his adult daughters Jenna and Barbara. Any complaints about that?

@ David YES we did and still do...

These leaders as we call them are removing themselves from the world of their fellow citizens at an ever increasing rate and that disconnect is reflected in the governance we have right now.

In that case, it would be nice to see the Mexican government hold a presser with the families of those who have been killed by the criminals in which obama and company loaded up with arms in Fast and Furious scandals that have been swept under the rug.

David, the school obama's kids, Sidwell, had at least 11 armed guards before the obamas' entered. Elite children being protected--that was the point of the NRA ad--why should those children be more valuable or worthy of protection than mine?

Uh, Robbi, because rich people can afford armed guards at that private, elite school. Those children who are private citizens should be given extra protection by the SS covering the President's daughters. They are also at a higher level of threat. That's not hard to understand.

And if the President's children, spouse, family members are abducted, threatened, killed - that would have a huge, widespread impact on his (eventually her) ability to focus attention that comes with-the-24/7 job on the nation's business and security, which also has global impact. GWB's grown daughters were given extended protection by the SS for an undisclosed period under the directive he signed 4 days before his term ended. Pres. Clinton signed an Executive Order for extended protection for his daughter. President Obama will do the same. That's justified, especially given the danger they will continue to be facing.

Robbi, the Mexican government doesn't have any credibility on the subject of violence and guns.

Just for the record, The Sidwell Friends School that the Obama girls attend does not employee armed guards. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-a-slashing-nra-ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

Maybe not...but Obama's kids have SS body guards....and I'm guessing they are packing pretty heavy..........whatcha think?

Why does PRESTDENT Obama need mental health screening? Is it a sign of mental illness for an American President to attempt to make America a safer country ? He hasn't impimented anything contrary to making it a safer pace to live. Now the Congress needs to vote on his restrictions, & his restrictions are very reasonible, each & every one. If members of Congerss wish to vote against his measures. He is smart enough to force them to stipulate why that are against things like better background checks & why there should be better contols on keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. He is making it harder for people that shouldn't have guns to aquire them. If cogressional people want to argue that we should have LESS backgrounf checks, let them dig thier own re election graves. It will be clear which party's attitude is ' if Obama proposed it, we MUST oppose it' & which party is attempting to help make America a safe place for our children. If Congerss keeps just blocking progress, their approval will go even lower than the 11% currently, which is 3% lower than Kafafi had among the people that killed him

That's President Obama, not prestdent. Excuse the typo. However, he isn't king obama & has never acted as king. People like you usually call him King Hussain.
Whatever?

I agree MM....no King but definitely a rock star!

Spot on...but this is Obama's MO...a lot of politicking and zero results........

Grant, the President would like to do more, but is restrained by his office. He knows that he can do little more than lead the way. He's doing that, even though he is often criticized for not leading. He leads and is criticized for that, too. As he said, it's up to Congress to do more and that will be driven by the will of the people.

"X", I hope you are attempting humor, but I just don't get attempt at linking these horrible shootings with partisian politics. Way off base.....

Wow Racer....
I had thought better of you from our previous discussion ...

FWIW Timothy McVeigh was a registered Republican and a Christian..Crazy , murderous and evil transcends partisan politics & religion my friend

Grant- Yes, McVeigh was all that, a real sack of crap, but the subject here is gun violence and gun legislation, not other forms of violence.

Just ban cars and trucks and then 1,000's of lives will be saved and you won't have to worry about guns anymore. "Nuff said.

Reasonable people don't care about the alleged politics of the evil, deranged killers. They shouldn't be able to get their hands on any firearm. This issue is about the madness and gun access by the mad (evil, deranged, enraged), despite politics.

So....you're willing to limit the rights of Americans to keep the evil from obtaining firearms? Good plan. So I guess we should limit what we're allowed to say in public just so that we keep people from saying things you may not agree with.

And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument with that, it's not. It's exactly the same thing. By the Constitution, our right to keep and bear arms (for the purpose of defense against any that would limit our rights or freedoms) is completely akin to our ability to speak in public. Or worship as we choose.

You know, Karsten, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you're not just trying to harass me. I have laid out just today what I believe about the gun culture and gun control at your own (several) requests, and at numerous other times. Are you and like-minded others just trying to deliberately be stubborn over this point?
I t i s n o t a b o u t t a k i n g a w a y 2 n d A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s. N o o n e i s t r y i n g t o d o t h a t o r p r o p o s i n g i t. I t i s a b o u t l i m i t i n g t h e a c c e s s o f s e m i - a n d a u t o m a t i c f i r e a r m s a n d r e l a t e d a m m o t h a t c a n s p r a y h u n d r e d s o f b u l l e t s i n m e r e m i n u t e s a t c h i l d r e n o r a n y i n n o c e n t p e r s o n i n r a p i d f i r e s u c c e s s i o n, n o t e v e n h a v i n g t o s t o p t o r e l o a d, t o p s y c h o s o r t h e c r i m i n a l l y i n s a n e, t e m p o r a r i l y i n s a n e,
o r k i d s w h o h a v e b e e n c r u e l l y b u l l i e d, w a r p e d m i n d s.
A n d t o c a r e l e s s g u n o w n e r s w h o a l l o w t h a t a c c e s s.

There, I hope that takes you as long to read as it did for me to type it, because I want you and any other boneheads to dwell on those words as long as possible and
maybe some of them will take hold.

Text read and is incorrect in its presentation the proposals will indeed UNDULY restrict the LAW ABIDING among us while having NO impact on the criminal activity.

If you are the victim of a home invasion, you don't want to run out of ammo before you run out of bad guys. It's that simple.
Large attackers, on drugs, can be difficult to stop if not shot in exactly the right places.
Assault rifles make GREAT home protection weapons.

Shooting courses (gun safety) are an excellent idea for anyone who buys a fire arm.

The real problem is the definition of Assault in any serious talk because ANYTHING can be labeled an assault weapon...

Don’t think so? How about Pit-bulls in Maryland?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-27/news/bs-md-pit-bull-ruling-20120427_1_pit-bulls-dog-attack-dominic-solesky

No problem banning Pits you say? Well now see expectation "creep" in action below

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-09/local/35493805_1_pit-bull-dog-owners-high-court

In Maryland, legislators’ proposed response to a recent court ruling — one that singled out owners of pit bulls — could make owners of all dogs liable for any bite, including the first.

Terrie- ".... but if you are a responsible gun owner then you have had lessons and been to the shooting range and should be able to take out someone trying to harm your family or kill that animal without assult weapons & tons of ammo. Shouldn't you?"
To answer this question- Yes, unless there are more than one bad guy, which is often the case, or if you are outgunned because the bad guy has a weapon that we law abiding citizens are not allowed to own. There are an estimated 10-30 million assault rifles in this country now. Bad guys will always have them, so good guys need them too.

Terrie,

YES we did JUMP on the supporters then too...

The ban resistance isn't about operator accuracy, it’s about definition creep and unclear legislative terms that are “expanded” and EVOLVE later…

Terrie- Here is some irony for you. The new 7-round limit magazine law in New York applies to the police as well. So, in a misguided effort to protect citizens from guns, a lot of cops are going to be severely impeded in there efforts to protect citizens from criminals.
Net result- Victory for criminals, victory for evil, brought to you by far left "thinking".

Above, I noted that this won't solve everything. It sure as heck cannot hurt!

Yes Terrie, yes it can. You don't make laws because they "can't hurt". You should only make them if they are absolutely needed. Laws are like lies- once you create one, you have to keep creating more. What we need to work on is our moral fiber, starting in Washington, with BOTH parties. The government is spinning out of control.

Yes it does HURT by setting precedents that are redefined on the fly…

That's the sad part. Some people actually think that's what it meant. It is very clear that the main purpose of being able to bear arms was to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Good point. Also, 5 children a day are killed with someone's bare hands. That's 1,825 per year, killed by bare hands. Yet, look at all the hub-bub and distraction over guns when we have FAR bigger fish to fry.
The media distracts us and waylays us with fallacies like gun control while our morality gets flushed down the toilet.

We can't cut off hands and feet. Those are God-given. Assault-military style weapons are not.

GGY

Actually you CAN cut off appendages - it's done TODAY in certain corners of the globe.

R, I said "we". I live in the USA. We in the USA, as a people and govt., don't cut off hands and feet unless medically necessary. Thanks for playing.

Hi Grant- What i mean is that I believe we are distracted by the media through their calling attention to gun issues and abortion rather than the moral decay of America. By moral decay, I mean the dilution of personal responsibility and the promotion of blaming everyone but ourselves for our problems. The media splits us over issues that have dead ends while real issues (issues that most of us in the middle 70% can agree on) and problems go ignored and unsolved. The far left and the far right divide the bulk of America from each other. While we remain distracted it's business as usual in DC and the government continues on it's hungry path of consumption. Our eyes are not on the ball.

Racer,
I dont think you're too far off on that last post. As a matter of fact had the GOP not embroiled itself on the dumb side of issues of female reproductive care, abortion and gay marriage and stepped away from the bugnutty religious freaks they might have managed to garner enough votes from women and those "in the middle " to actually have beaten Obama. Instead they remained devoted to stupid and invasive ideals that are counter to "smaller less intrusive " government which led to yet another resounding defeat .

Were you conscious during the Obama's bid for reelection? Did you see any despicable and reprehensible adds coming from him and the democratic party that rivals your anger and disdain for the NRA....again......you're optics are stuck on portrait...landscape is not an option for you.

John B.- Well said.

The NRA has an approval rating equal to or better than Obama right now...how to process that????

I certainly was JB. I did not see any despicable ads placed by the Obama Campaign targeting Romney's family, children or grandchildren or his religion, his birth certificate, his "otherness". No candidate's family - regardless of party affiliation, including spouse, children, grandchildren, extended family, in-laws, should be used for anyone's political aggression - NRA included.

The NRA has mega bucks influence. The President had to be elected by the American people. I'll go with the American people.

Hey Dimbulb, approval rating means "among the American people", meaning that more Americans approve of the NRA than they do Obama, get it?

GGY, as I mentioned above, Sidwell had at least 11 armed guards before the obama kids got to that school. Guards that are meant to protect the elite kids who attend. That DOES make the children of the elite more valuable--the point of the NRA ad. You and yours are just fodder for the obama media machine who gasp in horror when the shoe is placed on your foot.

No, Robbi, the point of the NRA ad was to slam the President for a practice that has been in place for decades to further their shameful biased attack on the safety and peace of mind of the majority of Americans who want something done now. The goody for them is that they also grabbed a chance to endanger the President's children by causing unnecessary focus on them - off limits to an unimaginable degree. REPUBLICAN NJ Gov. Chris Christie thinks so, too.

If I'm going to be anyone's fodder, rather it be for a just and peaceful cause, not the
greedy NRA as you are.

The rest of your comment I already answered under your previous post. Though it's worth repeating, I won't, so scroll up, sir or madam.

Karsten - you so funny :D

Karsten- GGY is a troll.

First, I don't whine to Patch. I do comment on the more obvious and vile personal attacks that they should pick up on by routine monitoring and from their own instrument - the flag button. It must take a certain number of those flag hits from a certain number of different people for violations to be removed.

Secondly, I didn't say or think that you attacked me personally. You do attack my sensibilities very often, but I think that's allowed under "differences of opinion". As long as I can have my say back, no problem with that.

Your personal arsenal is not going to stop them IF the US govt. came after you or anyone. It would just slow down a few individuals and get you and your unfortunate family killed quicker. If the US govt. is coming after you, they have a damn good legal reason to do so.

Wrong, the American people don't have constitutional rights to not be limited on getting hands on whatever it is they want: illegal drugs, various weapons that have been outlawed - machine guns ala Ala Capone style, The Patriot Act following 9/11, imports of various commodities, pornography, etc., etc., etc. The US Constitution is a living document that the FFs knew would need to be modified and amended to adjust to the times, changes in culture, updated. They were indeed smarter than a you or me, but they weren't infallible. They were smart enough to know that.

Karsten ,

I know facts dont often matter to you but for the sake of others that are following the discussion some clarification might be a good idea.

1) Hitler didnt disarm the German people. He ascended to power in Germany, not via the use of force but with overwhelming public support
2) The thought of a United States v The American People battle in which civilians with hunting rifles and pistole take on the US Marines ,F 16's , guided missles and tanks and somehow managed to do anything other than die in large piles is ridiculous.
3) The government can and should limit access to various weapons. Surely you arent suggesting that anyone should be able to buy grenades or rocket launchers at Wal Mart are you?

I fully support the right of the American people to keep and bear arms
Just trying to keep the derp to a minimum

GGY- Yes, actually, you do whine.
Grant- I hope you are well. I appreciate the points you made to Karsten, but:
"1) Hitler didn't disarm the German people. He ascended to power in Germany, not via the use of force but with overwhelming public support"- Seems to make an even bigger case for the comparison.
"2) The thought of a United States v The American People battle in which civilians with hunting rifles and pistole take on the US Marines ,F 16's , guided missles and tanks and somehow managed to do anything other than die in large piles is ridiculous."- I think you over-estimate the military's support of it's Commander in chief. Most military people I know (and I know a lot of them) think Obama is evil, way off base and a jack-ass.
"3) The government can and should limit access to various weapons. Surely you aren't suggesting that anyone should be able to buy grenades or rocket launchers at Wal Mart are you?"- Obviously nobody is suggesting that, this one is below you and sounds more like a GGY comment. Besides, we can make grenades and rocket launchers fairly easily if we need to, no need to buy them at Wal-Mart.

Racer,

Regarding my analogy re "government limitation of weapons" it was posted in response to Karsten's statement where she opined that "any limitation of the American people is unconstitutional"

"What part of "shall not be abridged" are you having trouble grasping? Any limitation of the American people is unconstitutional. And I firmly believe any."
Karsten Torch

Apparently the rational amongst us realize that the average Joe cannot have access to surface to air missiles and that the government is well withing it's constitutional rights to deny access to such , thereby "limiting" access to weapons.
Once we realize that these are both Constitutional and a pretty damn good idea then the discussion goes to where we draw the line of what is indeed limited by the government .

I guess the rub is where to draw the line? All I know is the good guys need guns. The government and other criminals are not to be trusted.
Karsten is a dude, Dude, and a pretty good guy, by my reckoning.

X - you call it whine, I call it pointing out every personal attack, which is against the terms of use. I do that knowing nothing will be done, but it gives me great satisfaction to make sure all who read these threads see you and your kind for what you are. In that way, you lose credibility for anything else you say.

X said "sounds more like a GGY comment." I say, thanks. I appreciate the compliment as Grant speaks knowledgeably and well.

X, even military personnel are human, can be flawed and wrong. They're not all heroes when off duty or on duty for that matter. That's why they, too, get in big trouble while in uniform. If you know them, well . . . If they disrespect their Commander in Chief, they're out of line.

"our personal arsenal is not going to stop them IF the US govt. came after you or anyone."

So...you're OK with limiting the 2nd Amendment based on the concept that at this point we're hopelessly outmanned, thanks to previous intrusions on our 2nd Amendment rights. That makes perfect sense, thanks for playing.

"If the US govt. is coming after you, they have a damn good legal reason to do so."

Of course they do. Just like every government in history has had a good reason to go after its citizens. But, this statement doesn't really surprise me from somebody that could see no wrong in anything the government does. Ever.

And your last paragraph was a waste of time for me to read. Again, because the government outlawed something does not make that decision correct. If you look at the actual purpose and background of the 2nd Amendment, any rules limiting what we're allowed to have is already in violation of the Constitution.

Oh, and Grant, I actually was saying that, by the rules, we SHOULD be allowed to have any weapons we want,at least any that are available to the US government....

Now, do I agree with that? Kinda.....but the armed forces should not be what they are currently, either, so without that, this argument is kind of academic, anyway....

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Alexander Hamilton, 'Federalist No. 29', 1788

Oh, and Racer, thanks for the prop up, but I actually WAS suggesting just what Grant thought I was.....

Karsten- No problem. It's not that you needed it though. I have to admit, it would be pretty cool to be able to buy a rocket launcher at Wall-Mart.

Karsten, why do you persist in trying to put words in where they weren't written or twisting them? That doesn't make you right. It just shows up your misguided logic. I don't change up your words or phrases. You have no right to do that to mine.

I am sad for you that you are so cynical and hate the government so much. I don't think the government does everything right, far from it. It is run by people. Human nature is not perfect. It's why we have laws and a government structure. You may want to live in an ungoverned society or think you do, but you wouldn't for long, if you lived long enough to realize that.

Those government people and military you fear so much, distrust so strongly, are Americans. They're sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, daughters, sisters, mothers. Many are Christians or otherwise religious men and women of peace and high moral character.

You seriously need some guidance and education on the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't say or mean all you claim it does. Maybe you can find a college course that teaches just the 2nd. You are mangling it.

Actually, I didn't print in big letters. I just used more spacing ;)

The President is a Constitutional scholar. I do believe he's more an authority on that document than you, me or any other poster herein.

I have to agree, the car and gun argument is a little tenuous...at best.....

Tim, I have read a couple of your "blogs". I'm not impressed. Judging from the lack comments, not many others are either.

GGY- I think your not being impressed with what Tim writes is a credit to Tim. You are right, however, about Obama being a Constitutional scholar. One always studies his adversary carefully in order to better destroy it. Obama is not stupid.

Racer, I would have ignored Tim as I usually do, but for his moron comment.
I have never called him that or any other name. He's hardly a qualified judge of intelligence, based on his own blogs and the comments he makes on others'. Just my opinion, though :)

President Obama is not the destroyer of the Constitution or anything else, but his adversaries are. I do believe I have never seen a more accurate comment from you than this: "Obama is not stupid." The rest of your comment, however, is stupid :D

It's both, Tammy. The President knows he can't legislate, but he can see that existing laws are enforced and the govt. departments which oversee those laws do their jobs. He said that he and the VP will do what they are able to do, but that it is up to Congress to take it up beyond what he can do and that it will be up to the American people to drive that. Doesn't sound like a tyrant or dictator, does it? But that's what the gun lobby, NRA and their supporters want low-information people to think. The VP's task force met with nearly 300 people from various groups, including the NRA and the CT victims' families. Some gun owners don't want to recognize this or even know about it. They prefer to listen to the drumbeat. Did anyone on the "right" listen to the speech? Pay attention? Doesn't sound like a lot of the Patch people did. They trust their own sources to translate and interpret for them, I'm guessing. It's much ado about not much change at this point.

Tammy writes
" Am I on to something? "
The answer to that would be "no"
You'll note the president didnt actually "legislate" anything ...or you would note such if you actually read/ or listened to his speech. He specifically left the "legislating" up to Congress, as it should be .