Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Recommended

Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 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, about 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, about 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, about 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, about 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, about 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, about 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. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, about 1 year ago

    @Simon_Jester

    The answer to your questions is yes, because we know that criminals always obey gun laws, and only buy guns from reputable sources. If they’re denied the purchase because of a failed background check, they quietly go home and watch reruns of “Leave It to Beaver.”

  9. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, about 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?”

  10. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 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.

  11. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, about 1 year ago

    @Simon_Jester

    No rant, just the truth. You said you honestly didn’t know the answer to your question. I answered it. If you think that’s the wrong answer, and that people who want to shoot someone won’t find a way to get a gun, you’re not as well-informed as I thought.

    If you did know the answer to the question, then you were dishonest, and the question was rhetorical.

  12. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Well, after all, SOMEONE has to trot out St. Ronny the Raygun in support of SOMETHING; since as President, he himself, accomplished little or NOTHING – except to get shot, and become a kind of “martyr” for those who need SOME KIND of extra-natural/super-natural “kicker/support/miracle” to bolster up their otherwise empty, flat, and generally specious claims.


    But then again, increasing Alzheimer’s, together with a wife whose Astrologer determined most – if not all – the old man’s day and activity, just MIGHT be considered “accomplishment” at that. It does appear that there are many who actually seem to believe such nonsense, anyway.

  13. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, about 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.

  14. Kylop

    Kylop said, about 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?

  15. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @ Ionizer,
    Sarcasm and irony rarely, if ever, do well in print. There may be a large quality of rhetoric in Simon_Jester’s question, as it IS, in truth, largely unanswerable. Nonetheless, the question does lead to a response in point:


    Having, over the years, at one time or other, given, graded, profiled, and interpreted all the then existent “Standard Tests” in the area of Psychology, and most, if not all, in the areas of “Education/I.Q.” as well – in my 45+ years as a Shrink – I know that NO TEST is, or can be, “infallible”. And, of course, NO BACKGROUND CHECK – which is a form of “test questionnaire”, like it or not – is, or can be, “infallible” either. In short, “infallibility” is NOT something to be found among humans. (And please spare me Romanism’s nonsense about it.)


    The fault lies in the assertion that, somehow by “definition”, we create the “ding an zich” we “define”. (As is the case with the imbecilic “Defense of Marriage Act”, for instance.) Reality, however, is vastly different. We CAN “test” – or “background check” – of course; BUT! The “validity” of ANY such “testing and/or checking” depends upon too many variables for ANY attempt at “absolute certainty” – though 85-90% is, I guess, probably “good enough for government”.


    What are you “checking” for? Who “defines” such complexities as “mental health”, or “criminality” for instance? And, the questions multiply according to the complexity of what is being “checked/tested”.


    The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution IS NOT OPEN TO, NOR ALLOWS REQUIREMENT FOR, EITHERCHECK OR TEST”. It simply states: " . . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If one seeks answer here, the ONLY answer is, simply: “Amend the Amendment.” And that is not, and cannot be, accomplished by “background check”, or any other form of “test”.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (18).