Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Um, no, his economic policies led to a greater gap between rich and poor which have only gotten worse under GOP presidents since, and he helped sink the budget with deficit spending (after campaigning against it for 30 years).
    On the other hand, he was at least willing to negotiate with his fellow Americans who happened to be Democrats — unlike the modern GOP.

  2. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 1 year ago

    @Mr. King

    The presidency of former president Ronald Reagan was from 1981 through 1989. If you are not mathematically impaired, then adding 30 years is from 2011 through 2019. So according to Ima we are still enjoying such a great boom and never suffered through the second greatest depression in American history. That makes all of the continued complaining about current president Obama a total farce. Glad to see that Ima has seen the light after all!!

  3. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 1 year ago

    I have a queston for conservatives.


    You’re always saying we need voter ID laws, ’to keep illegal aliens for registering to vote, right?"


    Well then, why don’t you support background checks on weapons purchases for the same reason? If illegals don’t have the right to vote, then why should they have the Second Amendment rights?


    And which has been the more common occurence? An illegal immigrant tryng to vote, or an illegal immigrant shooting somebody?

  4. jmattadams

    jmattadams GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Simon_Jester

    One is black-and-white. The other is all kinds of gray. Are you illegal? If yes, no vote! Who’s to say what criteria in background checks would prohibit gun ownership? I’m all for background checks that would prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns. I don’t believe that the line that “criminals aren’t going to submit to a background check” is a sufficient argument against background checks. But at the other end of the gray scale, what if government decides that simply not hating George W. Bush is a disqualifying for gun ownership? There’s not a background check that can only filter out criminals and lunatics, so by nature, it’s going to filter out a lot of model citizens. That’s where the Constitutional issue lies.

  5. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 1 year ago

    @jmattadams

    If someone tries to buy a weapon and the background check shows that he’s in this country illegally, okay maybe his weapons needs are legitimate.

    Doesn’t matter…he’s still here in this country ILLEGALLY And if that’s the case, he should be detained and then deported.

    Or that’s been the right’s mantra on illegal immigration for as long as I can remember

  6. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    If nobody can make a determination of what is “too crazy” for gun ownership, there is no way to enforce it. Any chemical, including acetameniphine, ibuprophen, antihistamines, etc, has the potential of altering a person’s mood, personality, or affecting their judgement. There are people with reactions to common drugs that can lead them to violent mood swings or violent acts. There is no way of telling who has what reaction. So by only limiting gun laws to prevent “crazies” from owning them, you should include anyone who has ever entered a drugstore.
    It can be argued that anyone who thinks the government is fascist and wants to take away their guns is paranoid, and should therefore be put on the list to have their guns removed for the safety of everyone around them. Perhaps the FBI and ATF should spend their time reading internet posts and looking for key words, like “totalitarian”, “fascist”, “Obamanation”, or other inflammatory posts criticizing the government to find those most likely to be dangerous to the public.
    Be careful what you wish for, Scott, you might get it.

  7. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 1 year ago

    Fairness compels me to ask another question.

    Would a background check have kept John Hinkley Jr from buying the gun he used to shoot President Reagan?

    Or, for that matter, Mark David Chapman? ( The guy who shot John Lennon three months before the attack on President Reagan. )

    These are not rhetorical questions folks, I honestly don’t know.

  8. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, over 1 year ago

    @Ionizer

    You seem to have misread my question. It was NOT, “Would you please go off on a childish, sarcastic, angry rant?”

  9. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    @Simon_Jester

    I understand your desire for fairness, but you can take it too far. Let’s make the assumption that Hinckley and Chapman would both pass background checks. The bigger question is, can we reduce gun violence by background checks? Whether one incident or another could have been prevented is less important than the question of whether fewer incidents total will occur as a result of background checks. Most people seem to believe so, but no one can know until/unless it is tried.

    A poll taken locally concluded that 89% of respondents want stronger background checks. Our Congressman says he doesn’t believe the poll, so he will do nothing. It has been brought up that, even if we allow for a 20% sampling error (which no self-respecting poll will allow), this means 69% are in favor. Makes one wonder whether serving the constituents is more important than serving your lobbyists.

  10. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    I’ve always thought Reagan’s assassination attempt was planned by GHW Bush. They wanted to get the doddering old fool out of the way so they could start their New World Order.

  11. Kylop

    Kylop said, over 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    “If mental health status isn’t include due to Hippa then They won’t do a bit of good.”

    Are you saying that all Americans need to have a recorded mental health diagnostic that is tracked and available upon request? How would you pay for this? Who administers the diagnostic? How often? Who interprets the results? Who oversees all of them? Are results in one state valid in another?

  12. Uncle Joe
  13. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    Currently there are many states where private gun sales don’t require any background check. Only 7 states impose a universal background check,

    Unsurprisingly, those states with weak background checks do a brisk business in providing guns to people with felony convictions who live in states with more strict gun laws.

  14. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    @ansonia

    “Criminals won’t participate in a universal system.”

    I hear this over and over, as though we are thought to be too stupid to realize that the reason criminals are criminals is because they don’t obey the law.

    Straw purchasers can participate, until they are caught. Is there any reason not to try to catch them?

    As long as people can buy weapons from someone at a yard sale or out of another person’s trunk, criminals will have a steady supply of guns. No background check. QED.

    Again, I will pose the same question: what do YOU think should be done about gun violence? Or do you think that the carnage done daily to our population is just the price we have to pay so that the sane people can be ready to fight the government?

    Please don’t say, “Enforce the laws on the books” until the laws on the books are not made unenforceable by the gun lobby. We haven’t had a fulltime head of ATF for 7 years. The number of ATF field agents hasn’t changed in close to fifty years. It is now only “suggested” that gun shops do inventory and report irregularities. Background check results are required by law to be destroyed. Laws have been put into place specifically to place impediments between local/state law enforcement and the ATF. When these are fixed, I will consider the “Enforce the laws” argument, but only then.

    Got a better idea? Lots of soon-to-be-dead people want to know. Doing nothing, to them, is not acceptable.

  15. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Interesting thing to think about…Could St. Ronnie even get nominated to run for president from the Republican Party today?
    Just wondering…
    I suspect not, since he would be dismissed as “Too Moderate” by the TEA party.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (13).