This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • Minarchist Jan 17, 11:59 a.m.

    From the put a cop in every school fund? vinylcarwraps23

    So it's okay to protect banks, financial organizations even the president with armed individuals but not our children? Can't make the connection there.
    Offshore
    January 17, 2013 9:14 a.m.
    Report abuse

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------

    I never see an armed guard at my bank, ever. Anyhow what is putting a cop in every school going to do? Nothing. Spending is your friend all of a sudden.

  • Offshore Jan 17, 9:14 a.m.

    From the put a cop in every school fund?
    vinylcarwraps23

    So it's okay to protect banks, financial organizations even the president with armed individuals but not our children? Can't make the connection there.

  • Offshore Jan 17, 9:12 a.m.

    Obama added, "I'll put everything that I've got into this."

    Too bad he doesn't set the same standard to run the country and setting budgets and deficit reduction. Enforcing laws we already have would be a great start to gun control.

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 8:54 a.m.

    All he has to do is cancel one of his many vacations and there will be the money to pay for it!!!!
    littleriver69

    You know he has taken significantly less vacation than the last guy in the office, right?

  • littleriver69 Jan 17, 8:30 a.m.

    All he has to do is cancel one of his many vacations and there will be the money to pay for it!!!!

  • dae66 Jan 16, 7:46 p.m.

    ATTENTION LIBERALS. Imagine if you will: It's October of 2001. The country is still grieving the horrific events of 9/11. George Bush decides to announce/sign the Patriot Act, and uses children as a backdrop, reading letters they "wrote" to say how much they want protection from terrorists. What's your reaction?

  • rmsmith Jan 16, 7:38 p.m.

    Appears to me based upon all the comments, no one trusts the government. Congress has the absolute lowest approval ratings, refuses to cut spending and inacting knee jurk reaction laws.

    That probably explains why everyone is so concerned about the proposed gun laws.

    If Thomas Jefferson was still around, he would tell us all "I told you so" Now what are you going to do about it

  • mxteam44 Jan 16, 7:38 p.m.

    Oh brother! Some of the comments on here make me wonder if a good percentage of liberals actually have a functioning brain.

  • ruthpauly Jan 16, 7:10 p.m.

    wow we have an extra 500 million for this? Cant feed the kids or teach them or clothe them but lets pull this out of our tails. Good reason to raise the debt. The guns they speak of protect us from the same people putting these rules in place.

  • dae66 Jan 16, 7:01 p.m.

    What the liberal voter does not understand is that this ban will not keep this type of weapon out of the criminal or insane person's hands. PERIOD!

  • josephlawrence43 Jan 16, 6:52 p.m.

    Why do people keep on quoting the Constitution?? Obama and his minions have not paid the first bit of attention to the Constitution, its laws or requirements. They have gotten away with it for so long, who is going to stand up and say whoa??? Do you honestly think Obama gives a tinkers dam about what the people think??

  • prodigalrn Jan 16, 6:03 p.m.

    the same problem with all of you libs...you compare the law abiding gun owner to every nut case out there. Why does it matter to you what kind of gun I own anyways, I'm not going to go out on some rampage.

    You don't want it or see a need for it, fine don't buy it. In the same line don't tell me that I can't either.
    lrfarms27572
    January 16, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Fine, since you're so willing to live and let-live. I won't tell you you can't buy certain weapons. You, in turn, along with the right, agree not to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, whether they have an abortion or do/don't have birth control. Deal?

  • Bill Brasky Jan 16, 5:52 p.m.

    "just like Lanza called the threat into the school before he showed up right?

    next!"

    Oh, you got me. Do you even know what we are talking about?

  • junkmail5 Jan 16, 5:43 p.m.

    The SENATE has the power to decide to accept or reject the impeachment articles on an individual basis and decide which articles to hear, thereby deciding what are impeachable offenses- Thought Criminal WS

    Uh, no.

    The House draws up specific article of impeachment.

    If it votes by a simply majority to approve them, that's it, the president has been impeached. Impeachment=indictment. The senate then decides guilty or not.

    The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue, perhaps you should read it sometime?

    Article 1, section 2-
    "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment"

    Abuse of power can be the charge for your black/white question of what specific charge, even if his actions ARE constitutional, he can still be impeached for abusing them.-Thought Criminal WS

    He CAN be impeached for taking too long to tie his shoes, technically.

    But it wouldn't be a charge with any sound foundation. Neither is yours

  • Thought Criminal WS Jan 16, 5:31 p.m.

    "But since you don't even know WHICH house files for impeachment (hint: it's not the senate) I wouldn't expect you to know that either." junkmail5

    The house of reps brings the impeachment proceedings.
    The SENATE has the sole power to try impeachments.

    The SENATE has the power to decide to accept or reject the impeachment articles on an individual basis and decide which articles to hear, thereby deciding what are impeachable offenses....

    Abuse of power can be the charge for your black/white question of what specific charge, even if his actions ARE constitutional, he can still be impeached for abusing them.

    I do see where I made the mistake writing 2/3 to introduce and didn't specific HoR. Either way...

    Impeach the liar.

  • junkmail5 Jan 16, 5:12 p.m.

    Do you wonder why this prez seems to think he needs more SS protection than any other one in history. Go on, you can answer that one yourself!
    stevee2

    Because you made it up?

    It looks like some of the things contained in these EO's are already illegal, like purchasing a firearm for another person. How is this being effective since he's really just re-stating current law?- flyguync

    EOs are often used to clarify the execution of existing laws.

    For example, prosecuting people who lied on ATF forms was illegal before this- but was not a priority for the justice dept. to prosecute, and since they have limited resources, they put other cases ahead of those.

    So the president can issue an EO saying "I order you to prioritize prosecution of these types of cases" or something like that, and suddenly with no change to the law, people who were previously getting away with that aren't anymore.

    Of course, some OTHER type of case will go ignored, limited resources and all.

  • junkmail5 Jan 16, 5:09 p.m.

    The constitution specifically says in the 2nd amendment that no laws/regulations/executive orders can be put in place to infringe on the right to own a gun.
    ConservativeVoter

    And none have been.

    So again, what SPECIFICALLY do you THINK he did that was unconstitutional?

    (hint: nothing)

    Junkmail5, you don't need specific charges to bring impeachment proceedings.

    The Senate has the power to define whatever high crimes and misdemeanors it feels justify the removal from office.

    Uh, yes you DO need specific charges.

    articles of impeachment are the set of charges drafted against a public official to initiate the impeachment process

    But since you don't even know WHICH house files for impeachment (hint: it's not the senate) I wouldn't expect you to know that either.

  • stevee2 Jan 16, 5:01 p.m.

    Do you wonder why this prez seems to think he needs more SS protection than any other one in history. Go on, you can answer that one yourself!

  • NC_Beach_n_Mtn_guy Jan 16, 5:00 p.m.

    There is already a law: "Thou shalt not kill" It doesn't matter how many rounds are in the clip.

  • lrfarms27572 Jan 16, 4:56 p.m.

    Yes, if you are receiving verifiable death threats like the president and his family does.

    Bill Brasky

    just like Lanza called the threat into the school before he showed up right?

    next!

  • driverkid3 Jan 16, 4:55 p.m.

    karolina919, EVERYTHING that comes out of this man's mouth is a crock of baloney.

  • Bill Brasky Jan 16, 4:53 p.m.

    "You conveniently forgot the 16 executive orders which don't need congressional approval to become law."

    Oh goodness...The executive orders are already laws. We have said this over and over again today. See...your reading off of yesterdays talking points, you need to move on to todays NRA ones.

  • Bartmeister Jan 16, 4:51 p.m.

    need a permit to buy a gun but not to push someone out a window? bombayrunner

    ====================================

    Perhaps in NY. You know they're much smarter than the rest. They have it all figured out with their gun regulations, and aren't they effective by the way?

  • Sachseek Jan 16, 4:51 p.m.

    so when a guy with a 10 round clips goes into another school with 4 guns = 40 bullets and kills 20 kids....what will the next level of ban be? have 5 round magazine???....you see where this is going? I'm a hard working American paying my taxes, striving for my family and we all share an interest in guns. Accidents do happen...we didn't ban flying because two planes came crashing onto the twin towers...stop the criminals!

  • Bill Brasky Jan 16, 4:50 p.m.

    "Oh really? I wasn't aware Raleigh PD was willing to stand guard at my house 24/7 to protect me and my family. Well, I guess we dont need guns after all!"

    Yes, if you are receiving verifiable death threats like the president and his family does.

  • flyguync Jan 16, 4:49 p.m.

    It looks like some of the things contained in these EO's are already illegal, like purchasing a firearm for another person. How is this being effective since he's really just re-stating current law? Looks like a dog and pony show to me.

  • adamstokes Jan 16, 4:49 p.m.

    "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" - DMX (and his dawgz bite!)

  • Bartmeister Jan 16, 4:46 p.m.

    The liberals are making such a big deal about the 30 bullet magazines.

    It shows how little they know about gun ownership and usage.

    Instead of the 30 bullet magazine, just use 3 10 bullet magazines which they say are okay.

    It only takes a second to change out the magazines.

    A crazy person bent on killing people will have no problem with Obama's proposed unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership. ConservativeVoter

    ========================================

    HEY. Complete logic will not be tolerated here NOR in this administration. Got it? That's part 2 of the $500M plan. They'll need additional funds later to combat your logic.

  • camperzsale Jan 16, 4:44 p.m.

    The president asked Congress to renew the ban on high-grade, military-style assault weapons that was first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994 but expired in 2004. Obama also called for limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or fewer, and he proposed a federal statute to stop purchases of guns by buyers who are acting for others.

    Forgive my ignorance ...he is calling for this...Congress needs to approve this right? He cannot just mandate it. I see some of his orders listed at the end of the article but they all look pretty general....The meat and bones stuff has to get through congress and that will be a battle. There are some democrat senators that get a lot of money from the NRA

  • karolina919 Jan 16, 4:44 p.m.

    Am I the only one who thinks this is all a crock of bologna!! Hey Mr. President, how bout you focus on fixing the budget instead of wasting more money on laws and reforms that we DON'T need!! I swear this country is all about writing a check that it can't cash!! And last time I checked, that's a crime!!

  • Minarchist Jan 16, 4:44 p.m.

    Yet Obama has no problem trying to limit gun ownership for law abiding citizens.

    Makes you wonder what his real agenda is.
    ConservativeVoter
    January 16, 2013 4:19 p.m.
    Report abuse

    Same as Romneys agenda in Mass when he banned weapons? You voted for that!

  • lrfarms27572 Jan 16, 4:42 p.m.

    There is no purpose for military-style assault rifles with large-capacity magazines, laser sights, scopes, bi-pods, etc., other than for killing people. Why would you want such a weapon?

    NoRespect

    the same problem with all of you libs...you compare the law abiding gun owner to every nut case out there. Why does it matter to you what kind of gun I own anyways, I'm not going to go out on some rampage.

    You don't want it or see a need for it, fine don't buy it. In the same line don't tell me that I can't either.

    I know it's strange to you that some people have guns.

    I think it's strange that people drive 2wd vehicles, live right on top of their neighbors, have so many electronics, can't fix their own posessions, manage their children, so forth and so on...

    ...but I'm not out to take away your right to do what ever it is that you want to do, It's not liek you have broken the law or anything right?

  • uscnnc Jan 16, 4:40 p.m.

    I'm a right leaning, independent voter and these 23 Executive Orders, do not hinder gun ownership. He has proposed that Congress enact certain laws, but nothing he signed today takes away our rights to own a semi-automatic rifle/handgun, or 30 round clips. I own semi-automatic rifles, like AR15's,AK47's and several other hunting rifles,shotguns and handguns. Nothing he did today changes that, it will take a act by congress to change the laws and I don't see a gun ban coming.

  • prodigalrn Jan 16, 4:40 p.m.

    The constitution specifically says in the 2nd amendment that no laws/regulations/executive orders can be put in place to infringe on the right to own a gun.
    ConservativeVoter
    January 16, 2013 4:32 p.m

    Just remember that the amendment you speak of was written when everyone had muzzle-loading muskets. You want one of them? Sure, knock yourself out. But you want an automatic machine-gun? Sorry, your rights aren't being infringed on by being denied that gun. I know, we're not talking about auto-fire machine guns, but again, when the 2nd Amendment was written, there weren't the myriad types of weapons available that there are today. In the times that the 2nd Amendment waas written, women couldn't vote, slavery was still legal, and many other laws were in place that now we would now find very objectionable.

  • jmdean4104 Jan 16, 4:38 p.m.

    And that's $500 million waisted on a "gun violence package" that will have absolutely no impact on any criminal who wants to commit a crime. CRIMINALS DO NOT BUY THEIR GUNS LEGALLY NOR DO THEY CARE HOW MANY BULLETS THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE ALLOWED TO CARRY, THEY ARE CRIMINALS. I guess they also need to outlaw the shooting vests that holds magazines too? The vest easily allows someone to keep (3) 10 round magazines on them which allows for a really fast swap from an empty one to another full one. Why don't they actually put into law something that actually makes sence and will have an impact. He's just gotta do something fast and now to make people happy and think he's actually done something. What are they going to say after they waiste $500 million and then another tragic shooting happens?

  • Bartmeister Jan 16, 4:37 p.m.

    Care to show a case where a Secret Service Agent ever murdered anyone? atheistswillrule

    ==========================================

    well if they did, you'd never know about it.... It is the SECRETE Service....hellooooooooooooo.....

  • brrrrabbitt Jan 16, 4:36 p.m.

    Try defending your home with a 3 shot hunting rifle. Large magazines are needed. The crook invading your home will have an assault rifle even if outlawed.

  • lrfarms27572 Jan 16, 4:36 p.m.

    Care to show a case where a Secret Service Agent ever murdered anyone?

    atheistswillrule

    I haven't murdered anyone either, so why can't I the rifle of my choice?

  • babedan Jan 16, 4:34 p.m.

    An Executive Order can only be issued by the President for those circumstances that fall under the direct powers of the President of the United States as stated by the Constitution. He cannot issue Executive orders that Affects the constitution or make law using an executive order as the Constitution states those rights lie with the Congress. Any infringement upon the rights of the constitution or congress could be considered "Treason" to his country and his oath of office.

  • Bartmeister Jan 16, 4:33 p.m.

    Taking presidential action as the president is not "passing the bunk." WooHoo2You

    ===============================================

    Doesn't excuse frivolous actions that do no good and create further unneeded debt.

  • ConservativeVoter Jan 16, 4:33 p.m.

    "Please explain what is unconstitutional with this act? This bill is not law and still needs to go through Congress. He didn't go around them, he did exactly what his position allows...Shows you guys were going to complain no matter what.
    Bill Brasky"

    You conveniently forgot the 16 executive orders which don't need congressional approval to become law.

  • atheistswillrule Jan 16, 4:33 p.m.

    Here is our President trampling on our rights yet he just signed a bill giving him Secret Service Protection for the rest of his life. Thank about that, and I bet they have magazines in their guns that carry more than 10 rounds, don't you? babedad

    Care to show a case where a Secret Service Agent ever murdered anyone?

  • TheStewie Jan 16, 4:32 p.m.

    So what about the guns that killed the border patrol agent that was then covered up by Obama?

  • camperzsale Jan 16, 4:32 p.m.

    Man, I didn't realize Donald Trump had an account here!


    Now THAT is funny!

  • ConservativeVoter Jan 16, 4:32 p.m.

    "Obama should be impeached for this unconstitutional act.- ConservativeVoter

    Which item, specifically, do you find unconstitutional?
    junkmail5"

    The constitution specifically says in the 2nd amendment that no laws/regulations/executive orders can be put in place to infringe on the right to own a gun.

  • InTheNo Jan 16, 4:31 p.m.

    There is no purpose for military-style assault rifles with large-capacity magazines, laser sights, scopes, bi-pods, etc., other than for killing people. Why would you want such a weapon? NoRespect

    Agreed. 100% I want my semi automatic weapons specifically to kill any career criminal who is willing to come into my house and harm me and my family as we sleep. I do have lasers and spotlights. I do have high capacity magazines. I don't want to be on a level playing field with those guys that slither into your house in the middle of the night. What will you do, go running screaming to your neighbors when they're done with you? Don't knock on my door.

  • ConservativeVoter Jan 16, 4:30 p.m.

    "He sure did. Now I am correct in assuming that both houses of congress have to act on them...one way or the other? This is where it plays out. Obama can order all he wants but it means nothing to me until it becomes law.

    I don't see it getting past the house in any way shape or form.
    camperzsale"

    The problem is that the House and Senate don't APPROVE Executive orders. They have the right to override, cancel, and change Executive orders.

    With Harry Reid in control of the Senate, nothing that Obama does with an executive order will be undone at least while Obama is in office.

    The next president can undo executive orders done by Obama if he chooses to.

  • lrfarms27572 Jan 16, 4:29 p.m.

    That is the complete opposite of “shall not be infringed” though.

    BTW, what is the subject at hand??? Shall not be infringed should mean I have the right to a tank and surface-to-air missiles to ‘protect my family’ under the GOP definition. Infringe: Act so as to *limit.* We *limit* felon’s gun rights, we *limit* children’s gun rights, we *limit* the insane’s gun rights, we *limit* fully automatic weapons, we *limit* the length of a shotgun barrel etc but this suggested *limit* is different?

    WooHoo2You

    so you are advocating that criminals should retain all of their rights?

    I certianly am not!

    there are law abiding citizens and then there are criminals, plain an simple.

    use your common sense and stop grabbing for anything you can get to make another failed arguement.

  • Thought Criminal WS Jan 16, 4:27 p.m.

    Junkmail5, you don't need specific charges to bring impeachment proceedings.

    The Senate has the power to define whatever high crimes and misdemeanors it feels justify the removal from office. It takes a 2/3 majority of present voters to introduce the impeachment, then a trial comes of specific charges with votes to each individual charge.

    Clinton was impeached perjury and ABUSE OF POWER.

    I think there's more than ample examples of AOP with Obama. All it needs is citizen support to urge representatives to remove him from office peacefully and legally - so to people who wish they could take thier vote back - YOU CAN. All you need is a 2/3 majority - put enough politicians careers on the line and it can happen.

  • Bartmeister Jan 16, 4:27 p.m.

    That was a rhetorical question. Why would someone who already owns an AR-15 be okay with legislation that prevents the next guy from getting his? 37378787

    ====================================

    Maybe because he has his and doesn't care? Dunno. I have mine but still care about the rights.

Oldest First