(94) comments Back to story

claudia burnham

Jezzzz, fuzziest math I've ever seen!!!!!!!!!!

Doug Rodwell

Marion, are you nuts?! Your numbers make no logical sense. Apparently you agree with Stalin, Hitler, Qaddafi and Castro. Gun control worked out so well for their people. I choose freedom and liberty with the ability to protect my family from the criminals who will always have access to guns...illegally.

Gary Miller

The pro criminal lobby opposes the pro gun lobby?
Trial lawyers want all legal guns outlawed to protect their clients.
The anti gun lobby believes if honest citizens were disarmed criminals could work safer.

The most effective anti gun law ever passed is "Project Exile". A law designed by the NRA to make criminal gun use untenable.
Google project exile.
Every state adopting it has reduced the criminal use of guns.

31,000 killed by guns?
How many were criminals killed by criminals? #1 catagory of gun deaths.
How many were criminals killed by law enforcement?
How many were criminals killed by legally armed citizens defending their property, family or themselves. #2 catagory of gun deaths.
Worst of all?
How many were lawabiding citizens killed by criminals because their local government wouldn't let them defend themselves. Killed by anti gun laws.

Steve Fouga

IHOG, I think most were suicides.

George Croix

Are you using 'gun death' stats that include people who commit suicide?
Ones who accidentally kill themselves with an 'unloaded' gun?
Criminals killing other criminals?
Criminals killing honest people?
Honest gun owners defending theior lives with firearms?
Insane people killing anybody they can shoot?
Police killing criminals?
Most of the 'gun deaths' numbers seem to include them ALL, which, of course, is somewhat disengenuous in making the point.
One 'study' I saw a couple of years ago even included the dead in war in their average.
If you're really worried about death, then get started on the over 1 MILLION human beings every year flushed down a toilet or cut up and thrown in the trash as the 'price of freedom' of 'choice'.
At least the gun owner has a chance to survive...

Kevin Lang

Abortion and gun violence are two separate issues. There are no dependencies between the two when it comes to solving either. Just because someone is worried about the senseless gun violence doesn't mean they aren't worried about the abortion rate. And vice versa.

Lars Faltskog

Truly, what I believe it really is composes of the right-wing elitist republicans/teapartiers wanting the rest of the citizenry to eventually phase out. And what more resourceful method than to have as much weaponry at hand to accomplish this.

That is, for the rest of us po' folks (minorities, single parents, those needing governmental aid) to gun each other down. It's a Darwin-like mindset.

They're just too much in denial to admit it when they're whooping it up in their country club get-togethers, clapping their hands together when they sit down at their $2000 a plate dinners. As they lend their ears to speeches about how the minorities and gays are ruining our blessed, god-fearing country.

John Menna

Marion ,
In the old west, when everyone carried a gun there were no mass killings by these idiots , as they are cowards and do not expect to be a target themselves.

Lets face it, all these mass killers are cowards, as they know they are killing defenseless people.. If everyone or even 1 out of 10 carried a gun these cowards may kill one or two but then they would meet their maker .
A policeman is only 8 minutes away but a gun in my pocket is 2 seconds away.

George Croix

Why do 'progressives' hate the poor and weak so much?. And honest people. Why hate and fear honest people?
The very folks who cannot physically defend themselves are the ones most in need of the protection that a firearm and ability to use it provides.
The people who live in the worst places because that's all they can afford do not have the luxury of depending on 911.
Those people have as much right as anybody to stay alive, yet the usual suspects on the left would see them disarmed and helpless in whole or part.
The 'progressives' talk about 'more laws' and 'eliminate guns' as if just wishing makes reality. Tell the folks in south Chicago that are NOT bangers and druggies how well more laws will make them safer. The toughest in the nation are so far doing squat. Maybe the 'progressives' can explain to us all why that is? Why aren't the criminals obeying the laws? Is it possibly because they are NOT honest people - they are criminals?
The victims past and those to be would no doubt love to hear from the really, really smart and empathetic Left who have all the answers.
Except the ones that actually work.
For that matter, why are 'progressives' always so afraid of guns, but not of criminals?
Given a horse and wagon, it would not surprise me to see them doing their best to get the horse to push it.
Going strictly by the numbers, the Left has killed more people in the last 40 years with 'choice' than all the gun deaths combined, even counting the wars we've fought.
As a mathematical exercise with death the common denominator, 'progressives' should be feared more than all the criminals.
If it's not death, then, that get's those undies in a wad, it must be their irrational fear of inanimate objects, or the poor and weak. Or the honest.
Full circle.

Lars Faltskog

Response to gecroix posted at 4:27 pm on Thu, Sep 19, 2013:

Honest people are not the issue. Honest folks do things out of good intentions all the time. Unfortunately, those of us who are honest are not insulated from the craziness that is around us. I think Adam Lanza's mama was an honest person (albeit a bit naïve), esp. since she couldn't fosee the tragedy her son would ensue.

Or could she? I think just about all of us have relatives who should not enter our doors. If I held weaponry, I would keep my mentally unstable uncle away. Most folks don't do that - that's why we need tougher gun laws. More questions on the checklists. We all need to give an honest answer to: "Do we need all these guns?"

Speaking of Chicago, I would think that most of the residents in the "projects" would love to have the weaponry taken from their complexes if they knew that it would mean a safer environment. We keep forgetting New York City, which has immensely experienced a decrease in gun-related crimes due to more visible/community-oriented policing and a mindset among the residents that having less guns is simply a whole lot better than having more guns.

From justthefacts.com comes this tidbit of info: "Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms."

The vast amount of stolen guns come from private households and cars. Guns that are present in households are easy-access tools for people who choose to commit suicides. Under-18 juveniles are the most vulnerable in this regard. Also, simply put, less guns mean less "crimes of passion". Your mentally unbalanced nephew, Conrad, has a much better chance of "cooling off" and coming to a sense of reason if a gun is not present in the home.

Wanting less guns isn't because of a dislike of honest people, it's b/c of a dislike of needless tragedy.

Carlos Ponce

Marion, put a sign in your front yard declaring it a "Gun Free Zone". Let's see how safe you feel.

Kevin Lang

Carlos, you aren't trying to say that guns are the only effective way to keep a household safe, are you? Personally, I like to sleep. I'd really rather be wide awake well before the bad guy's gun makes its first sound. That's why I've also invested in strong doors and locks. And an alarm system. If I ever get to the point where I think I need something else to wake me up, I'll invest in a dog, too. I tend to think that not giving the drug dealers, loan sharks, gang-bangers, and other thugs something to get mad at me over helps a little, too. Of course, what do I know. The police haven't had to investigate intruders at my house--live or dead.

Of course, very few are talking about taking away people's rights to have guns for protection. Unless, of course, by personal protection you mean the right to walk into Golden Corral and start shooting at everything that moves. Or not. If that's the case, then you might have more than just sverige1 and Marion questioning whether you should have a gun at hand.

Carlos Ponce

You will notice that many of the mass killings were in "Gun Free Zones" including Fort Hood and the Navy Yard. This is thanks to President Clinton who banned all but MPs from carrying arms in March 1993. Are guns the only way to keep a household safe? No, but don't infringe upon my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's my right!

Kevin Lang

I make more out of the fact that these were mostly perpetrated by crazy people with guns. It makes for great rhetoric to imply that if we didn't call them "gun free zones" that we might not have these mass killings, but I think the key ingredient is the crazy people with guns. Or, more appropriately, crazy people with guns that aren't concerned with their survival.

Crazy people don't think rationally. If they did, they wouldn't do these mass killings. Since they aren't rational, and I like to think I am, I don't think I'm in a good spot to really speculate on what makes these people choose their targets. More than likely, our rational minds can't click the way their's do.

Mary Drosche

sverge1 - Are you kidding me?!? Typical liberal drivel. Don't think for a minute that there are no "elitists" in the Democratic Party, nor that they don't have $5,000/plate fundraisers. You might look up the last time BO came to Houston and the cost of those "plates!" If I recall, might have been $10,000 or more. So get over yourself and the typical liberal spiel you've got going and be part of the solution, together, not the problem!

Lars Faltskog

Response to mdrosche posted at 8:29 pm on Thu, Sep 19, 2013:

How grand that you signed on to post and joined the debate. If you are a regular reader you will know that on many occasions I pointed out that both Houses, both political parties have their share of elitist element.

Solutions?? I have proposed many. EX: I also am a proponent of term limits and no health care for these individuals, since the majority of them can find coverage through their law firms. Not that you or I would be worried where THEY get their care...they're not worried about us.

More to the matter at hand: Carlos, the only Constitutional right we have is to make sure we are supplied with a strong MILITIA. The founding fathers did not mention individuals, not even an individual carrying a musket. I would think that today, Jefferson/Washington and the others would see how out of hand the gun situation is. Don't know why...but I envision most of these "gun enthusiasts" on this thread as having the persona not unlike Yosemite Sam, looking for varmits behind every bush.

Kev is correct. Unless you are a dealer or are a conspicuous consumer where the whole world knows you have valuables stashed, you very likely won't be a victim of home invasions and the like. Geez, be glad we don't live in Syria or Iraq.

Mary Drosche

No, I haven't been a regular reader so i obviously have no clue of any of your previous posted words of wisdom. I've always been a proponent of term limits as well as believing that our representatives, all very well off, should be working for the love of their country or maybe a token $1/year. No, they're not worried about us and I've never believed they were.

What a lovely welcome ... you always that full of yourself?

Sara Cox

I must add my 2 cents and sense to this argument because I feel so strongly that something (s) need to be done about our violent mindset here in America. Maybe it makes no difference to 2nd amendment proponents that so many senseless deaths (suicides, innocent children, victims of domestic violence) could be prevented by reducing the number of guns available. Study after study correlates the number of guns available with the number of deaths caused by guns. This is like a logical tautology. I don't really have a good answer. The supreme court in 2008 and 2010 has redefined the 2nd amendment as referring to the individual's right to bear arms and that is why so many of us "liberal" people don't advocate banning handguns or "coming to get them" The NRA won a big one with those decisions. Any number of gun-related suicides, spouse- icides, toddler icides is too many. Is it that you guys who don't want any interference in gun laws don't care about the number of deaths that would not have happened if a gun had not been available? Personally, I have much stronger feelings about what people face AFTER they are born than what choices are made before a birth.

Gary Miller

Lot of emotion, little logic.
The liberal claim of "For the Children" ruined our public education system. Greedy adults instead of children get all the new funding.

Gary Miller

Truth in advertising?

They are not anti gun.
They are pro criminal.
The elitest, richest among them are trial lawyers protecting their clients from legally armed citizens.
When an honest citizen is killed they lose nothing.
When a criminal is killed they lose a valuable client.

Lars Faltskog

Response to IHOG posted at 10:50 am on Fri, Sep 20, 2013:

Well, IHOG...then it's a terrible commentary on our U.S. society in that, according to your analysis, a majority of voters in 2012 chose to return a Democrat to the White House. A Democrat who, in your words, is "pro criminal".

I suppose a majority of Democrats in Galveston are "pro criminal" also. Ipso facto, the majority of citizens in Galveston are "pro criminal", since the city is majority in Democrat voting.

I do have 3 questions: Does there exist a defense trial lawyer who is NOT a Democrat? Secondly, even though his verdict got overturned...isn't there still a question that Tom DeLay (a Republican) is still a criminal since he has a history of money laundering and conspiracy? Was Richard Nixon a criminal, or was the Watergate break-in just a small misunderstanding?

Gary Miller

No Severige.

All lawyers are not Democrats. Just the richest ones.
Tom Delay, wrongly charged, was not criminal. The Austin AG that shopped for a willing Grand jury eight times was the criminal. Just happened to be a Democrat that promised his party he would "get" Delay one way or other.
If Nixon had been as dishonest as Clinton he'd have burned the tapes and served his full term.
If memory serves Republicans forced Nixon out and Democrats defending Clinton. After Clinton left office he was found guilty of lying under oath, lost his law licence and paid a $750,000 fine.

Gary Miller


Nixon was forced out of office for a coverup of the watergate break in.
A far less criminal action than any of Obama's coverups.
Fast and furious?
IRS harrasment of Obama's political opposition.
NSA spying on citizens.
Ilegal modifications of the ACA law.


It is just so amazing to me that we have individuals running around loose in society saying they have so much feelings for the outcast of society, and proclaiming how much GOD ALMIGHTY loves the downtrodden,...the forgotten, and the abused. What they ignore, or have no sensitivity toward, is that GOD proclaimed to Jeremiah 1:5, that he knew him "BEFORE HE FORMED HIM IN THE BELLY!"
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
If GOD knew Jeremiah, he knew any other human before that human was FORMED in the belly,...and gave that individual a calling,...to be LIVE OUT ON THIS EARTH!
Yet there there are some who seem to feel, by there words and actions,....saying "TO HELL WITH WHO GOD KNEW AND LOVED BEFORE THEY WERE BORN, ....I JUST CARE ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE BORN!" IF YOU ARE IN THE BELLY,...YOU DON'T COUNT, I DON'T CARE IF GOD DOES LOVES THEM,...THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BE BORN!" "It is the living who must decided that for them,..NOT GOD!"
To those who don't know the will and the word of GOD,...or even don't give a "RIP" about them, I say this as a matter of record,...so later they can't say ...."we did not know".......
Isaiah 55:7-8

7" Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."
Lastly, in this world, a man is free to do whatever, he can get away with, but there will come a day,....that HE will meet the LORD of the Universe to account for what HE did while HE walked the earth,...and THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSES OR BEGGING GOING ON EITHER!"
II Corinthians 5:10
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
This is not even talking about the Great White Throne Judgement for those who could not hear the Gospel when they had the chance to listen!!
Time is steady moving and nobody know when death will creep up and tap them on the shoulder and say,..."YOUR TIME IS UP,...COME GO WITH ME!"
Let me be clear,...when that happens,...and it will,...we just don't know if it will be tonight,..tomorrow, or five years from now,...THEN, FOR THOSE WHO HAD ALL THE ANSWERS,...IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR OWN OPINIONS JUXTAPOSED TO GOD'S WILL,WORD, AND WAYS,..ARE GOING TO HAVE BIG PAINFUL, PROBLEMS FOR A LOOOOOOG TIME!
I get so disgusted hearing all this crap about GUNS being the problem! Is it guns compelling people to break in others homes? is guns which has people using chemical weapons on masses of people? Is it guns who have terrorists exploded bombs in NYC? Is it guns who have people in general going around cheating and stealing their ay through life? No! I SAY NO!..
It is the DARKNESS which has settled on this society and generation,...Satan has convinced them to do like Elvis and Frank Sinatra sang many years ago,...........
I DID IT MYYYYYYYYY WAYYYYYYY! I say go on and do it your way,....and you can be sure,..that when you take your last breath on this side of eternity,......there will be one sitting in the JUDGMENT SEAT,...who will do it HIS WAY!
Now let heaven record that whosoever read this post is without excuse. Amen!

Kevin Lang

One thing to consider, JBG, is that before the hammer, very few things looked like a nail.

Certainly, guns don't "make" anyone do anything. However, you give a gun to the wrong person, and all of a sudden he has courage to do things that he'd be scared fecesless to do if he had to count on his left fist as the only backup to his right fist.

Lars Faltskog

Response to Jbgood posted at 12:36 pm on Fri, Sep 20, 2013:

Well, JBG -
Maybe I can shed some light in regard to some of the logic as to why some folks emphasize much more on the existing individuals who have "feelings for the outcast" to a greater degree than feelings toward fetuses "formed in the belly".

Best explanation is that the "outcasts" who are walking on earth have the potential, in the here and now, to either make contributions to society or to be destructive/dangerous to society. An embryo "in the belly" can't yet develop his/her skills and definitely can't rob a bank nor abuse the welfare system.

An embryo in the belly can't point a gun at a Denny's and terrorize people who are simply going about their lives. Sure, no one wants a family member to make the horrifying decision to not carry the child to life. But, for those who have life - we need to help our fellow mankind/womankind.


That right Mr. Lang? Why would a person not take a Machete and rob a convenience store, if he did not have a gun? Why would he not take a long knife and put it to a pretty girl's throat and rape and ravish her,..if he did not have a gun? What makes a human being want to do such a thing in the first place, gun or no gun? That is the big picture nobody is seeing,..nor do they want to talk about it! I have been ranting and raving about this for some time too!!
I'll say it again,...this time I hope someone listens. Why did we not have all of what is going on today against humanity,....fifty years ago? Please don't insult my intelligence by saying there are more guns out there today than it was fifty years ago! Why? Why is it not safe to take a walk around the block in the evening without being mugged,...or to drive a new car down the road, without being carjacked and shot? Ohhhhh talk back me if you can!!!!
I'll tell you why, and it is the same reason God's word says is why,...and that is man's heart has grown evil and reeks with darkness,...out of doing things he deems is right in his own eyes! Therefore by doing so,...neglecting the word of God,....he has attached himself to,...what is coming from the WORLD and it's ways for living!
The result is that man has diminished in integrity,..morality,...and character,...because it is all about him and fulfilling his own lusts,...taught to him by Satan and the world! All of what we see on the evening news is prophesied by the Word of God,...and it is coming true right in front of our very eyes! It is there,..and a sixth grade Sunday school student probably is aware of it!
Roman 5:20 says,......But where sin abounded,..grace did much more abound...!
This means that if a man will look up,...get up, and straighten up,...there is still a chance for him! One other thing, which complicates the matter,..and that is Satan and his followers have intimidated the church into going behind the four walls of the Houses Of God,...and playing church,....instead of BEING THE CHURCH AND BEING ABOUT GOD'S BUSINESS IN THIS WORLD! We are supposed to be the light of the world, and the salt of the earth. We are supposed to "GO YE" and preach and teach! However that is not happening, because of apathy, selfishness, and fear!
Most Christians you meet today will tell you that being a Christian is a private matter, and they don't want to talk about it publicly! Hahahhahhhhhh! Now THAT is one reason why this world is in the shape it is in now! We have to many CIA Christians,...or UNDER COVER CHRISTIANS who are ashamed to be so in front of men! JBG is not that way I can assure you! I LOVE IT! I spent to many years getting ready for just such a time as this,...and I am never going to let it pass me bye!
I figure David had his chance,...Jacob, Joseph, Rahab, Ester and Ruth had their chances,...NOW GOD HAS CALLED JBG OFF THE BENCH!!!! AWWWhhhhhho!!!!
Of all the Satanic controlled,...black hearted,...dark hearted individuals existing now,...not having a gun,...is not going to stop them from doing the evil the enemy is constantly whispering in their ears. Believing guns are the problem is only giving Satan another opportunity to belly laugh at foolish humans who don't even know he is here STEALING FROM THEM,...KILLING THEM,..AND DESTROYING THEM! (John 10:10.) Better wake up!

Kevin Lang

JBG, relax. Take a deep breath. Enjoy the fresh rain-washed air.

Nowhere did I say that guns are the only weapon of choice for such crazies. However, it's very difficult to attack dozens of people in a narrow window of time from yards away with a machete, switchblade, long knife, or even crossbow or blowgun. Possible? Perhaps. That's all I'm saying. I don't think that guns make a sane man mad. Any weapon makes a crazed man dangerous. Guns allow them to avoid physical or emotional engagement with their victims much easier than many other weapons. You just get to more damage before you get physically exhausted or your conscience has a chance to kick in.

Before the gun enters the equation, you still have to have a person with a desire to do a lot of damage to a lot of people, and they still have to pick the location where they're going to do it. Their weapon of choice helps give them the means to inflict the damage.

Certainly, we really don't want crazy people having the means to do damage at all. A big reason why we tend to focus more on getting guns out of their hands is that with most other weapons, there's a greater belief that the victim has a fighting chance. A guy with a gun can kill dozens per minute. A guy with a knife or machete is not likely to be that efficient.



Thank you sir,....I mean it! I want to thank you! You just proved my point of what I have been hammering away at,... trying to get folks to hear first, and understand afterwards.
Men naturally wants to live the way THEY want to live,...and follow their Satanic instructed SOULS/FLESH ....instead of learning the word, speaking it and doing it, thereby being TRANSFORMED BY THE RENEWING, AND THE SUBDUING OF THE FLESH! ( Romans 12: 1-2.) It takes one to intentionally use that measure of faith GOD has given to all men to combat this force which leads all men to do WHAT IS DEEMED RIGHT in his own eyes and not GOD's Romans 12:3.
3 "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
Again,..I want to thank you,....no telling how many you have helped to see things more clearly now. [wink] Hey, I'm beginning to "LACK" you! Can you tell?

Lars Faltskog

Well, JBG -
The "take away" I got from your 3:19 post is that the circumstances that led a girl/woman to get an unwanted pregnancy stemmed from placing oneself before placing God. That is, if we follow God's rule then we will live a life of righteousness and servitude.

LOL, if only bvoresident could see me write the word/servitude that he calls me out on.

Well, JBG, in theory I am all for old-fashioned and clean living. In fact, when I was in my youth I romantically envisioned life was like Ricky Skagg's song/video "Let It Be You", where the romantic young man is circle dancing with his young/pure one-and-only girlfriend. Soon to live a life of tradition and bliss...the way it should be.

Boy, did I discover that very FEW people have that fortunate circumstance. These days, it's few and far between. One would have to spend very many lonely lonely nights before that kind of thing can happen. I seriously doubt that too many people these days will opt to "subdue their flesh". At best, we can hope that they if they "flesh" themselves toward each other that a boy and girl use protection and not get on the road to pro-create. As we see, other kinds of "sober" decisions are made to prevent long-run pain and suffering (for embryo and parent alike).

Bottom line is that our populace will never go back to the traditional ways. Aint gonna happen.


Mr Lang you might not be aware of it, but I have worked with men who are highly capable of MAKING a gun! What happened when men like you outlawed whiskey some years ago?
I'll tell you,....the MOONSHINE business took off,..and it won't be no difference with guns!! The only difference will be the crooks or the black hearted individuals will have them and people like YOU won't! Ohhh don't worry about JBG,...because I will have one stashed somewhere,...you can count on that! Wake up man!!!
Hey man,...you are still missing it! It is not about what others think or what way they decide to live their lives! Every tub must sit on it's on bottom with GOD! A personal choice must be made. It is that simple,....or that hard for some to understand! Now get it together man,....work with me here,....YOU ARE WORKING ME, AND THIS IS FRIDAY HOMIE! [wink]

Kevin Lang

JBG, please, don't try to tell me that I'm asking for guns to be outlawed. You know darned well that's not what I wrote, and not what I've espoused in this forum.

Please, take a sip of you Diet Coke, and re-read what I've written.

While you may be off your rocker a little sometimes, I don't think you're anywhere close to the "crazy" threshold where it would make sense for society to reconsider whether you and guns should be close companions.

Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 9:10 pm on Thu, Sep 19, 2013:

I'm perplexed in the ever-increasing and growing myth that the majority of mass shootings have occurred in "gun free" zones. Really? 1. Fort Hood in Killeen, and now 2. Navy Yard near D.C.

Oh, and newsflash...Aaron Alexis' 1st victim was an armed security guard.

George Croix

Even the military has places where firearms are not to be carried.
Ergo, gun free zones.


Mr. Lang! Hey Mr. Lang, did I hit a nerve there? Yes I think you are one of those who want to get rid of our guns,...and you might want to persecute me for taking the kind of stances for God the way I do, but I rather do that than to be like you!
Your theme is to be on the edge of liberal insanity, and if not that you insist on hanging around the middle of the road of most issues. Yes,...the way you express yourself on this forum,...I think you want to take our guns. Now if you got a mad for Old JBG,...then I apologize for that,..but I'm just being honest here. I'm also sorry about that nerve!!! [beam]

Kevin Lang

JBG, if God tells you to make up my position for me, then go for it. Just don't expect me to take the position that your god says I have. If your god is telling you that my position is for a total ban on guns, or even restrictions on honest, sane, law-abiding people, then your god is wrong. I already have my desire of sane people not declaring open season on innocent people. I don't see anything to be gained by taking their guns away. The crazy people and hardened criminals aren't safe with themselves, however, and I see no reason why we should let them play with our lives.

If you want to live a lie, then, by all means, go ahead and lump me in with the people that want to take all guns out of circulation. If you want to prove that you live the Truth, then quit making up my stance on guns.

Gary Miller

Scerwball math.

The FBI annual count of homocides reports over half were with something other than guns. Knives, blunt objects, poisen, strangulation, sufrocation etc.
Even suicides are not usualy with a gun.
Combining military deaths with civilian deaths is a desperate attemp to blame guns for the conduct of people. Only people can decide to kill with a gun, guns make no decisions.


Well okay Mr. Lang, I'm glad we got that settle. So you are on our side then? I apologize to you. You know I don't mind apologizing if I'm wrong,...you should know that. So I'm going to take your word on this thing.
Oh, by the way,...My God,..generally spelled with a capital "G" by Christians,(thank you) did not say that about you! Did your god tell you my God told me that? If your god sad that about my GOD,...then your god was the one who was wrong. I assumed by the way you spoke on the issue, that you was for gun confiscation...but you have reassured me that I was wrong. So that is the reason for the apology,...which I hope is sufficient.
I'm glad we had this discussion,...I think is was very productive,...I really do. Have a good night,..and we will talk more down the road.

Kevin Lang

JBG, it would be nice if we got the guns away from the people that, by law, aren't supposed to have them. For instance, the convicted felons. And, it would be good if we could solve the issues around mental illness so those that are mentally disturbed can be properly treated and don't become threats. But a wholesale assault on gun ownership would be ridiculous. I tend to think that would create more, and some just as bad or worse, problems than it could ever hope to solve.

Chris Gimenez

What these extremist gun-ban advocates will never talk about is how many lives are saved by having guns. If those incidents were reported with the same zeal as the lamestream media reports gun deaths, there would be a much clearer contrast showing that guns are used by law-abiding citizens to prevent assaults, deaths, thefts, and other violent crime many times more often than they are used to illegally kill others. We're used to the manipulation of facts by the left to support their bizarre agenda.

In response to servitude1's questioning that Fort Hood and the Naval facility were gun free zones is of course another refusal by the left to acknowledge the facts. The only ones allowed to be armed at Fort Hood were the MP's and the police who also patrolled the facility. In D.C. the police officers had handguns but the military personnel with long guns were not allowed to have ammunition. Sound familiar? Another act of political correctness that cost lives.

Kevin Lang

What cost lives in DC was that a crazy man breached security with a shotgun, killed an armed officer, took his gun, and continued his rampage. The Left didn't kill those people, nor did the Right. A crazy man with a gun killed those people. As long as we feel more comfortable blaming incidents like this on the Right or the Left, we'll never get into the important discussion of how we keep these kinds of incidents from happening in the first place.

I think the first thing we need to clear up here is that NO ONE wants to stare down the barrel of someone else's firearm. Not even the most skilled, adept, and quick-reflexed home owner or law enforcement officer. We do not need people in our society to have guns for the purpose of picking them up and pointing them at people for no reason. If you're pointing in defense, you certainly should be allowed to have a gun. However, to spray ammunition at convenience store clerks and customers, mall visitors, theatergoers, co-workers, etc. is not supportable behavior.

What CAN we do BEFORE these incidents happen to keep them from happening. Sure, longer jail terms, greater use of the death penalty, more armed security in public places and workplaces would certainly help reduce the magnitude of the incidents, or cut down on the repeat offenders, but all of that only addresses the problem AFTER it's manifested. What do you suggest be done BEFORE the person can even leave his house with the gun ready to go?

Marion Medwedeff

Let it be known that I am a gun owner. I value the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To prove my service to my country, I have an Honorable Discharge from the Army of the United States dated from January 5, 1951 to November 12, 1956 and signed by Captain W.E. Hall - Headquarters Texas Military District.

I know how to use my gun, but I do not keep it under my pillow at night. I have four curious grandchildren.

If someone breaks into my home at night, I probably would not have time to get.my gun, load it and use it.

I was surprised by the 40 responses to my Letter, mostly negative. I want all of you to know that I would gladly risk my life to protect your right to bear arms.

I just wrote that it was a costly privilege, and that the Right Wing was more interested in money than human lives. They want to reduce the money spent on the education and health of our citizens.

I say to all of you proud gun owners: "God bless you and the United States of America"..

Chris Gimenez

"......that the Right Wing was more interested in money than human lives. They want to reduce the money spent on the education and health of our citizens."

That's an outright lie Russo. You disgust me just like the Pelosi and Reid flame-throwing, class-warfare, spend-more-than-we-have democrats who believe every social problem should result in more taxation and more government control. It's a gutless way of dealing with the massive fiscal and social problems this country has but it's the only thing you people can bring to the table.

Your letter was disingenuous and I could care less whether you served in the military.

Lars Faltskog

bvoresident - not nice!! No recess for you today!

Lars Faltskog

Well, Russo. I too believe that most folks who have the unfortunate event of having someone break into their home wouldn't have the speed or the quick-minded wherewithall to effectively confront the intruder.

It's wishful thinking that we would have our guns ready to "draw" when we're haplessly in the home watching late night Judge Judy, half asleep - and someone comes in ready to do his/her business.

Same goes for being "armed" when we shuffle to our cars after a day's shopping at the local mall. The best hope at home or in a parking lot is if the robber does his business, takes my 12 dollars and moves on.

I mean, truly, what chance did these folks in Nairobi a couple of days ago have? Some got out, others didn't.

But, you hit the nail on the head regarding the right wing's need for wanting to squelsh education and health, poor folks and the like. I indicated that on my 12:49 pm on Thu, Sep 19, 2013 post.

Chris Gimenez

Hey servitude1, here's the chance that at least 100 people in the Nairobi mall had because of one person with a handgun. I know it doesn't fit your narrative but then the facts rarely do come into play in your comments.


Lars Faltskog

Response to Jbgood posted at 4:15 pm on Fri, Sep 20, 2013:

Hey JBG, I AM working with you. Trying to understand someone who passionately believes in the Christian life, yet I'm perplexed that even at your stage of life you don't seem to realize that the whole world doesn't have your belief system, and they never will.

To what degree do we chastize a person for not following God's will? The couple who live together and aren't bonded with a clergy-sanctioned union? Not even a civil one?

Isn't owning a gun with the intent to kill "against the will of God"? In a literal biblical translation sense, "yes". But, even I don't believe in it just being "black and white" on that. Yes, guns are needed to protect the public. Without them, in Nairobi, the death toll at that mall would have been much higher.

So, what about other "ungodly" things? Sure, we all have our tub that we have to sit in that goes to the ground, as you say. But, what the whole culture, for example, of bigamists who don't devote to just one wife? Are they doomed for H -E double hockey sticks?

Marion Medwedeff

Bvresident, what is the gut filled way of dealing with the massive fiscal and social problems facing our country?

Does it take a lot of guts to lower your taxes by reducing amount of money spent on others less fortunate?

Not every unfortunate person is a freeloader.

Chris Gimenez

Russo, the gut-filled way is to stop wasting billions on Obama phones, for democrats who voted for obamacare to refuse to subsidize their own personal health premiums with our tax dollars, to stop relaxing the guidelines for acquiring SNAP benefits and then ignoring the waste, fraud, and abuse that comes from the easy access, to stop giving billions to "green energy" companies that go broke quicker than Obama can tell a lie, and to cut the waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicaid and Medicare before telling us we need to pay more in taxes.

"The Medicaid program also has a giant fraud and abuse problem. The GAO puts the cost of improper Medicaid payments at $33 billion, or about 10.5 percent of the program's total spending.16 But if improper payments are 20 percent of the program's cost, as Malcolm Sparrow thinks might be the case, that would be a $63 billion annual loss to taxpayers.17 - See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fraud-and-abuse#sthash.sN9NwA9O.dpuf

Let me ask you Russo, since you seem to be so adamant about accountability and fiscal responsibility. Do you allow your grandchildren to do anything they want and to give them everything they ask for? If you don't, are you trying to deprive them of a good life or to harm their health or to otherwise keep them from being successful? Just wondering.

Chris Gimenez

That should have been, "adamantly against accountability and fiscal responsibility."

Lars Faltskog

Response to mdrosche posted at 9:40 pm on Fri, Sep 20, 2013:

To answer your question. Probably, "yes". So full of myself that I'm writing here like all others here, and not even getting paid for it [note sarcasm]. I learned a long time ago that we are who we are. You can't please all of the people all the time, you're a darned fool if you try.

I would think that merely expressing some opinions on a forum would usually not prompt raw reactions, but I'm not surprised if at times my writings are a bit "annoying".

Either way, to more of the matter at hand: It is a well-known fact that republicans have much more disposable income, more fundraising $, campaign contributions, more lavish parties than the democrats.

Sure, there's exceptions: democrats spend more on lobbyists in general, some House dems have more money than their repub counterparts. Here's an interesting article on that:

Lars Faltskog

Fact check for bvresident posted at 8:59 am on Mon, Sep 23, 2013:

The "Obama phone" program was started in the Reagan administration - the Lifeline Program. Here's a Snopes article link -


Kevin Lang

The program was modified under the George W. Bush to include cell phones. The program is implementing tighter controls to ensure there is only one phone line--regardless of type--per qualifying household.

Contributing to the Lifeline program is strictly voluntary. While the telephone carriers are required to pay into the fund, they usually pass the charges on to to subscribers as per-line surcharges. If you're adamantly opposed to the Lifeline program, you can refuse to have telephone service. In a business world where everything is negotiable, I'd bet that some people have negotiated those charges off their bills.

Chris Gimenez

The truth doesn't stand a chance around you two guys. Obama took a reasonable plan under Reagan and Bush and then blew it up into an entitlement feeding frenzy in order to solidify his voting base-you know, the one that wants to be spoonfed from cradle to grave.

Here's the facts:


Notice where the FCC says it is rife with fraud and abuse under Obama. Notice where it says that under Obama it now includes smart phones with cameras and 100 free minutes. You don't need a smart phone with a camera to take a call from a prospective employer or to call 911. But that's the reality of what you two and the democrat party stands for-WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE.

Kevin Lang

bvresident, keep on believing that I'm for fraud and waste, and that I'm some kind of liberal hyperspender. If that's what tucks you in at night and makes your comfortable, please, sleep well.

You are pretty good at spewing out talking points, though. Are you sure you're not on Reince Preibus's staff?

Chris Gimenez

He called and left a message but I never got back with him. Now if Cruz were to call......

Lars Faltskog

Hey bvoresident -
Did you use your Obama phone to call him?

Lars Faltskog

Well, I've had plenty of friends/relatives point out how "conservative" I am with personal spending and so on. So, I suppose I'm a poor example of WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE.

So, I second the "keep on believing" notion. I'm quite amused when I manage to ruffle feathers with little or no provocation.

Bvoresident reminds me of a government professor I had at UT. At the drop of a hat during class he would start welling up tears and scream out at us, "No one taught you anything you fools! This country is going to go downhill with your generation, and I'm glad I won't be here to see it." [more tears]

Chris Gimenez

Getting a little dramatic aren't you servitude1? I'm not sure when you made me well up with tears but like I said earlier, the facts don't stand a chance around you and kevin. But I suppose I am like your old professor to one extent-I keep schooling you on the truth regarding your president and his destruction of this country.

Kevin Lang

Let's see what I made up and tried to pass as fact:

-- The Lifeline Service was implemented by the FCC during Reagan's administration.

-- Cell Phones were added during GWB's administration.
-- There is Fraud and Waste in the program.
-- Things are being implemented by the FCC to remediate the problems with people and families having more phones and lines than they are eligible for.
-- Things are being implemented to pull people out of the program that are not eligible for the service.
-- The program provides a valuable service for those people that truly need it and meet the requirements.
-- Processes to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, should not have waited until the Obama administration.

I didn't realize that I had such a vivid imagination. I need to become a novelist....

Chris Gimenez

The fraud and waste became rampant under Obama as the phone giveaway became defacto vote solicitation. Under Obama the cell phones became smart phones with cameras and free minutes. What part of that don't you understand Lang? You and your little buddy servitude1 are all about providing freebies to those who are primarily too freaking lazy to do anything about their own personal situation.

You say you don't support waste, fraud, and abuse and yet you continue to say obamacare can't be stopped so we should just deal with it. That is full-throated democrat entitlement-talk for a program that is already rife with abuse of both our personal medical history, our private information and our tax dollars. Who do you think you're kidding?

Kevin Lang

bvresident, just about ALL phones have cameras these days. At the low end of the price range, there are lots of smart phones that sell for the same price as dumb, or feature phones.

Let's put it this way, if I give you $1.00 to buy a jar of peanuts, and you get to WalMart and you can get a small jar of Great Value peanuts for 95 cents, and they have a sale on a larger jar of Planters for 97 cents, is your purchase of Planters an "abuse"? How about if you got a couple extra dollars in tips last night, and were able to get a larger jar for $2?

Show me where they're getting CURRENT GENERATION smart phones instead of last-year's model feature phones. Otherwise, you're just latching onto the term "smart phone" and ASSUMING they're getting iPhones. Also, do you know that the program is covering the full price of whatever phone they walked away with, or is it perhaps possible that they used a few dollars of their own funds to get the upgraded phone?

I'm just not going to go berserk over hyperbole. Get the rest of the story, and then we'll know exactly what's going on. You know, those "facts" that you claim conservatives have a monopoly on?

Lars Faltskog

Response to kevjlang posted at 9:04 am on Mon, Sep 23, 2013:

Yes, indeed. A crazy man with a gun in D.C. - not a "left" or "right" thing. Also, what isn't "left" nor "right" is the concept that untreated and unaddressed mental health issues are a contributing factor in our society's violent behaviors.

I have to agree with a lot of what the NRA has been saying lately. It IS a mental health issue. Much along the lines of Russo, THIS is where our country needs to invest. One proposal I have is for our young people: a requirement for all high schoolers to take Psychology 101.

Also, how about - along with young people being up to 26 years old to be under their parents' insurance - to allow part of the insurance plan to have counseling for the young adult(s). Unfortunately, many of our young do not have a healthy social base, such as a church Young Adult group, or something to that effect.

Marion Medwedeff

bvresident, I must admit that Democrats, more than Republicans, are responsible for a lot of waste in government spending on social programs, but I believe that many social programs benefit the nation. On the other hand, I believe that Republicans, more than Democrats, are responsible for a lot of waste in government spending on waging useless wars that benefit no one.

I just wish that both parties could set their hatred for each other aside and work together to make imperfect solutions that will make our country stronger.

This is my last comment, so you will have the last word. By the way, my wife in the 62 years of our marriage, more than I, saw to it that our eight children had to pull their own weight. All eight are hard working citizens. Two are hard core Republicans like you and two are hard core Democrats like me. The other four spend little or no time with politics.

The thing is, we all love each other and work together to solve family problems.

Chris Gimenez

"Bush's Wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were voted on and approved by democrats and republicans. Unlike obamacare which will cost this country more than both those wars combined and will provide less healthcare and increased costs.


BTW, I'm not a hard-core republican but I am a conservative who believes this country is on the wrong track due to both parties. I despise most republican politicians almost as much as I despise almost all democrat politicians. And I'll say that my biggest disappointment in George Bush was the increase in government spending that occurred on his watch.

George Croix

If the answer to education and health was just to toss money at it, we should be the best educated and healthiest people on the planet.
No amount of money can overcome an unwillingness to learn, or to at least try to keep oneself in shape.
It's a nice pipe dream to think that money is the answer to social problems. The real answer is attutude. Until one is of the attitude that they will not be kept when they don't need to be, or marginalized and exploited in return for a check to them and a vote from them, each passing generation will get less return on investment in each other.
Back when it was considered shameful to be cared for when able to care for yourself, or to take from one person who earned it and give to another who expected it, thinsg were better.
A LOT better.
I don't see any current trend back in that direction.
Quite the opposite. Now, we have government agencies ADVERTISING for people to come get their 'free government goodies'.
For the folks who can't help themselves, I hope they get all the help they need.
For those that can, but won't, I don't really care what happens to you...
One of the prices of freedom is participation in that which makes it's perpetuation more lilely, not that which ensures it's ultimate demise.

George Croix

Matthew White.

Lars Faltskog

Slappy White.

George Croix

A seventh-grade student in Virginia Beach, Va., has been suspended from school for playing with an airsoft gun with a friend in his front yard while waiting for the school bus.
The school's so-called "zero-tolerance" policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report."
'Progressive' stupidity.

Lars Faltskog

Vanna White

Kevin Lang

gecroix, I'll agree this seems to be a bit over the top. Next, kids will be kicked out for using broom handles while playing "Army" or "Cowboys and Indians".

I can certainly see the wisdom in making sure that kids know not to do that in the dark, and especially not to try to surprise a stranger with the guns. However, just playing a game in the front yard with a friend seems harmless enough. Even if there's some common thread between Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, Klebold & Harris, et al and playing with guns in the front yard, it ignores the millions (perhaps billions) of kids that played with toy or fake guns in the front yard and never shot anyone.

George Croix

Everyone has to eat.
Not everyone becomes a lard but_ doing so.
Possession and use of a fork and spoon is no more likely to make one into blubber than possession and use of a firearm is to make the owner create mayhem.
It's all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That which is anathema to 'progressives'.
'Zero tolerance' is just another excuse for mindless application of one size fit's all.
It relieves the 'decision makers' from having to make said decisions based on the situation at hand. It's a great tool for people who should not be in positions of importance in the first place by virtue of having exceeded their level of competence.
Not so much for others.

Lars Faltskog

I think geocrox has "liberalphobia" or aversion to progressivism.

Part of the problem of living in a somewhat modified democracy (i.e. republic) like ours is the seemingly ease at which we can exchange ideas. Whether I am considered "progressive" or "liberal", despite that, I too believe the decision to suspend the boy for just playing with the air gun before school was an inappropriate one.

However, with the ability for entities to make decisions, apparently the school officials were empowered with the unchallenged decision-making authority to rule that the child be suspended. Perhaps common sense will win eventually, the boy could be reinstated, and an apology to him and his family. Then, a re-group among the school's bigwigs and a lesson in wise decision-making.

Regardless of that, it probably is best practice for families, next time, to not let children play with air guns in front yard before the bus picks child up. I mean, why give them reason to "jump the gun" so to speak and come up with such a response. Playtime with airguns probably would be best when school hours aren't impending.


Ohh they are at it again, trying to blame guns for today's problems! Tell me then,, why is it that all these problems we are having today,..were very miniscule fifty years ago? ( Hold on,...let me get my fishing waders,lolololololol ).
Why did those fools go waste all those people in Kenya last week? It was not to many of them,...but why did they do it? Why did Assad gas his own people killing thousands, and what is stopping such incidents from happening over and over again? If you can't stop a man from crossing the borders of this country,....WHAT MAKE YOU THINK YOU CAN LIMIT HOW MANY GUNS WILL COME IN,...once there is a market for them,....( Remember Prohibition?) ..assuming others will listen to those who would have guns confiscated!
Yes I said confiscated,...because that would be what it would come to, in the end!
Remember what happen in Germany!
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Try enforcing the laws on the books, and holding people responsible for their actions, and stop blaming catastrophic events causing loss of human lives things juxtaposed to blaming them on those who lack the moral turpitude,...integrity,...character to to exist in society running loose!
Lastly,..don't try to sell this rubbish to the Chinese they are to smart to be bamboozled by this anti gun drivel,.....try the Russians! They just might buy it.
Yes, I'm convinced, "GO SELL IT TO THE RUSSIANS!"

George Croix

"Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News -- despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement."
"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," he (Sen.Jim Inhofe) wrote."
"Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty."
This Administration never misses a chance to screw with the citizens of this country in deferrence to those of others.
America bad. All else good.
Very 'progressive'.

Chris Gimenez

This is a response to the hopeless liberal kevin lang.


Pay special attention the cost of the program in Bush's last year in office: $143 million.
The current cost of the program under your president has ballooned to: $1.75 BILLION in 2011 with a growth adjusted estimate of $3.9 BILLION in 2012!

Your claim that the FCC "is doing things" to ferret out the WF&A is bogus. Their efforts are expected to winnow out a rounding error of $33 million from the program. FactCheck, the liberal's go-to site for supporting their grab-and-spend hypocrisy stated that they uncovered more than 400,000 users in the program who had more than one phone obtained through the program.

I don't need to prove to you or anyone else whether they're getting iPhones or Blackberry's or any other type of phone-the program is an entitlement that has been used and abused by your president and the democrats to garner votes.

obamacare is going to be another program just like as they're already cutting funds needed to oversee the integrity (it's difficult word to use in the same sentence as Obama) of the program.

Now why don't you and your little buddy servitude1 try to pick one or two words out of this comment to argue over rather than acknowledge the failure that is the obamaphone program.

servitude1, I notice you couldn't respond to the fact that one man with a handgun is credited with saving at least 100 people in the Kenya mall massacre. Kind of blows your stuff out of the water doesn't it?

Kevin Lang

Yet, the program is NOT federally funded. It is funded by the phone companies. Universal Service Fund. Obama's administration does not write the checks for the program. The FCC oversees it, and a private non-profit administers it. In 2006, the Lifeline program spent 820 Million. Your 2011 number is correct. Somewhere between those years, there was a little economic event. Perhaps you remember it. Economic reports indicate that a few people lost their jobs and wound up eligible for the program. In 2010, the FCC audited the program, and is projecting 2 billion in savings over 3 years. It will probably turn out to be $33 million, but we have a year or two to wait for the final accounting. Further reforms will be needed, because the costs for the program have been doubling quite frequently of late.

The Lifeline program was good when Reagan started it, it was good when Bush amended it to allow either cell or land lines. It's bad that the program went unmonitored for about 5 years split between two administrations. Shame on both, but, unfortunately, that's water under the bridge that we ain't getting back. It's still a valuable program, but it, like just about every federal program wastes a lot of money when we don't monitor it.

Technically, it's not "taxpayer funded", but it is funded, directly or indirectly by consumers as a surcharge on their bills or out of telecom company profits. If those dollars are being wasted, I'd rather be the one wasting them.

Since it's a valuable program, I'm willing to see if the FCC can clean it up, streamline it, and make it more economical. Otherwise, it will become quite apparent that the program will need significant restructuring to return it to the original intent.

It has problems, and those problems need to be fixed.

Now, you go ahead and keep pretending that your incompetent president invented this program. He can't invent a way out of a wet paper bag, yet you give him credit for inventing a program that has been around for more than a quarter century.

Chris Gimenez

You know kevin, it's not a good sign when someone is completely unable to focus on reality. I never said your incompetent president invented the program. I said he sent it somewhere that only a democrat could send it and still proclaim it to be wondrous in benefit. Why is it that neither you nor your little buddy can respond to my comments exactly as I state them? Is that because the facts are too hideous? You can say the federal government doesn't pay for the program but try not paying the surcharge on your phone bill and see what happens. The FCC is a federal agency. You're trying to part hairs here as usual. It doesn't matter who started it or why. Your president has been in office for five years and is solely responsible for the program and what it has become. I'm having a premonition that Jay Carney will be calling you soon.

servitude1, what about the Kenya mall massacre and the man who saved 100 people with a handgun? You said, "I mean, truly, what chance did these folks in Nairobi a couple of days ago have?" referring to the uselessness of an armed citizen defending themselves against criminals with guns.

Kevin Lang

I've replied to all of your drivel. It's apparent that all you want to do is rewrite someone's talking points without any attempt to fact check them or even give them a second look. You also completely ignore what I write and respond with whatever the next set of talking points you want to use is.

I get it. The program costs a lot more than it should. I have written absolutely nothing to dispute it. You're aghast that poor people may be getting smartphones. You don't care that with the technology lifecycle, a phone that was hot stuff 2 years ago is a giveaway today. You don't care that the Obama administration made no changes to the program until the FCC's audit, except that he didn't order fixes to it that his COMPETENT predecessor forgot. You don't care that the FCC is working on fixing the problems, you're aghast that it's not fixed yet and that it's not fixed retroactively to 2005.

Your also aghast that I'm not going on a berserk tirade over it, choosing instead to note that they are trying to fix the problems. If I had more intimate knowledge of the the inner workings of the program, I'd probably try to come up with a more agressive aproach, and probably find deeper savings, but I'm not there, so I have no deep knowlege of how deep these fixes go, and if they're going to make a dent in solving the problems.

Sorry, when there's stuff to be fixed, I'd rather deal with the solution than standing on a perch screaming about the problems.

Chris Gimenez

Kevin, they offer remedial reading comprehension classes at COM. Just give us all a couple of things I've stated that haven't been backed up? You just throw stuff against the wall-like your little buddy servitude1-and then run away. I'm not trying to get you to go berserk unless just hearing the facts will send you off the ledge. And when you say you'd rather deal with the solution than stand on a perch screaming, tell us all just exactly what you're doing to fix obamacare or the obamaphone program?

I'm also not aghast-as you say-that poor people are getting obamaphones. I am upset that the phone program has grown by BILLIONS since your president took office and that abuses have grown exponentially also. Why are you having such a hard time dealing with the facts?

You and servitude can keep bringing up Bush and Reagan every time obama shows his incompetence but I think most of the country realizes now that this is obama's show. Those other guys have been gone for a long time.

Kevin Lang

You claimed that when Bush left, the program spent just 143 million. In 2006, it spent 820 million. You might want to check even Senator Griffin's notes. 143 million was the non-landline cost in 2008. Total cost for Lifeline was 822 million in 2008.

Fact checking and reading comprehension. Seems you aren't quite as willing to walk the walk as you are in talking it.

Yet, you still want to claim that I ignore facts, and love the increased costs of the program. You continue to ignore my statements to the contrary because you just want to believe you're squashing a liberal.

Just to tone down the hysteria just a bit, the cost grew for the entire program grew about 500 million from 2008 to 2010, primarily due to mismanagement of the eligibility rules--multiple phones per economic unit.

When you choose to look at the right set of numbers, the increases, while still quite significant, become more eyebrow raising than a point of mass hysteria.

Yes, the costs need to be managed better. Us tightwad consumers would rather get back to the USF surchages we had ten years ago.

Lars Faltskog

Sakes alive, I think bvoresident has officially blown a gasket, popped his top, gone ballistic. You do know that part of expressing ideas on an Opinion page like this involves the analyzation of various stances regarding subjects at hand: guns, spending, etc.

The debate points that I bring up simply illustrate that we have products (guns, phones) that at one time served a purpose. But, now they are out of hand. I actually agree with you in regard to Obama/Reagan-Originated Lifeline Phones. I often wonder what is so IMP that folks are on their cells at 5:30 in the morning?? I've actually seen that when I make an early start in the day.

Governmentally financed or not, that's really "out there", to be on the blower so early. Regarding guns: I think it's comparing apples to oranges in regard to a global terrorist act (apples/Nairobi) and the numerous gun-related deaths in our country (oranges/D.C.Navy Yard). No doubt that the AL-caeda's are wholly evil, with a mindset so far from ours. In our country, however, this Aaron person was seemingly "one of us". My only stance on the domestic front is for us to figure out a way to get the guns out of the hands of maniacs like Aaron (or that fool in Washington state that shot up the mall) so that we aren't in fear each time we want to hit the malls.

You do realize that Aaron's 1st victim was an armed security guard. Wouldn't it be great if all involved found something else to do besides hold onto guns?

Chris Gimenez

Yep, you got pelted with facts and the best you can come up with is along the lines of Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid proclaiming anyone who opposes obamacare to be anarchists and arsonists. Classic liberal belch. My gaskets still holding. It'll take someone far better than either you or lang to get me overheated.

Lars Faltskog

Well, BvOresident -

You can begin a Teaparty-type activist campaign to protest the Reagan-Originated Obamaphone Lifeline program by giving up your membership to your phone carrier.

That way, you won't be contributing to the financing of the "Obamaphone" program, just as millions in this country already are doing.

Here's another idea: any of us can give up our Social Security card, and keep more of those monies away from the degenerates who undeservedly buy groceries and live rent free. If we have enough of our own $ independently (perhaps outside of the US), we don't have to participate in S.Security system.

Don't buy anything either. Much of those sales taxes go to the folks that you and I wish could just simply disappear. I think we should form our own Independent Nation. Can I join, BvO? I am the right color.

Chris Gimenez

Typical liberal, nonsensical blather. You obviously believe WASTE, FRAUD, & ABUSE in any government program should be tolerated and applauded because it shows that you care about others and have empathy for their situation. I bet you were beaming with pride when Nancy Pelosi told her colleagues they needed to pass the obamacare bill so they could find out what was in it.

You flit from one goofy statement to another and when the facts expose your ignorance you prance off to some other bizarre, liberal hallucination. You obviously can't respond intelligently to my response regarding the lives saved by one man with a handgun at the Kenya Mall massacre. That's what happens when the loopy left are confronted with facts.

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 8:45 am on Wed, Sep 25, 2013:

Well, in my 5:26 pm on Tue, Sep 24, 2013 I do recall addressing the " one man with a gun at Kenya mall" who rescued a handful of people. My response to that was that, from the reports, Aaron's 1st victim in the Navy Yard shooting was an armed security guard.

Those 2 pieces of information only tell us that life is a "crap game". Sometimes an armed person can help us, sometimes that armed person (or someone else) doesn't succeed. Then, he/she becomes a victim.

Now, going along with the title of this thread, "Guns and the price of freedom" - Are we truly free when we feel we have to be armed with a gun when we go to a mall or to a Navy Yard (or Kileen) and meet up with our armed forces relative to go shopping with him/her at the Surplus City army store?

One day I had a promotion where I was in Killeen. This was about a year before the massacre there. My thoughts then were that we live in the greatest country on earth. However, even then, I thought one of our biggest problems was gun violence. At that time, I recalled the Luby's massacre from the 90s. Perhaps at Luby's, if there'd been someone with a gun - not many of the restauranteers would have been killed?? Kind of hard to wrap around that kind of thinking.

How about fostering a culture where folks don't feel the need to let their anger out with gun use? That's all I'm writing in these forums.

George Croix

"Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights."
Of course it will.
It's been quite evident, at least for non-'progressives', that this bunch can be trusted to walk their talk exactly as far as they can be thrown.
One armed.
A broken one, in a cast.
By Chandra Bahadur Dangi.

Texas City has it's work cut out for it to retain it's current title of "Biggest Concentration of Liars and Cheats Per Capita in the United States".

George Croix

A LOT of trouble could be saved if responses were given to what was actually written than what furthers the position of the responder. That's a habit I've tried to break an otherwise interesting poster of for months now. I've failed.
Going further, trying to engage a troll on a rational level is as hopeless as getting Hollywood starlets to wear panties when riding in limo's when the doors will be opened by paparrazi...[wink]

Lars Faltskog

Response to bvresident posted at 10:41 am on Wed, Sep 25, 2013:

Well, the costs to manufacture the Reagan/Obama Lifeline phones continue to whittle down as technology advances. Furthermore, I read from breitbart.com that according to a 17-state survey, only 9% of phone recipients were considered ineligible. Fraud isn't as rampant as some teapartiers want to attest.

Forbes.com says much of what has already been delineated here. NOT taxpayer-funded, instead thru the USF (universal service fund) - where us cellphone customers contribute to this with our bill. Expansion of the program started much more in full in the 90s simply to allow internet access in rural areas for doctors offices. One must be 135% below poverty line, and there's extra savings for our Native-American citizens.

Therefore, I truly doubt if it does a whole lot of good to be envious of the poor who need phone access for emergency purposes, as well as communicating to loved ones. Poor folks should be able to talk to each other like the rest of us. I also don't envy rural folks' need for communicating to the rest of the world. As it is, many rural areas still can't get "roving" internet signals b/c towers aren't located near some of the residents.

Kevin Lang

sverige1, I believe that eligibility is 135% of the poverly level, or, up to 35% richer than poverty.

Kevin Lang

Did a little more research. The Lifeline program itself does not cover handsets at all. The carriers provide the handsets. Some provide free handsets from whatever their inventory happens to be, and some allow the participants to buy whatever phone they want. The Lifeline program pays $9.25 per month per line in subsidy. With some carriers, that gives you some calling allowance and perhaps other services that vary from carrier to carrier. Verizon, for example, does not offer a "free" service, but uses the subsidy to discount the monthly service charge. Companies like Assurance Wireless give a free phone with the plan that's generally just a basic phone using older technology. Some of their phones lack even a camera. I believe all are capable of text messaging, which, as we found out during Ike, is more reliable during an emergency that cell voice service.

People using Lifeline with Verizon do raise some important questions. With the discount, they are still paying $25/month for phone service. If they're so poor they can't afford $34/month, how is it that they're able to cover $25. Perhaps a benefit of being at 135% rather than 110%? I don't know, and won't pretend to know. However, I will grant there are perception issues there.

Looking at Verizon's Smartphone lineup, they have quite a few that you can buy for $1. Of course, that does open things up to perception issue #2. You have to get a data plan with these, and that adds a certain amount to the service cost--adding about $35-40 or so of unsubsidized expenses.

Certainly, there are legitimate questions to ask. If one is willing to ask the questions, instead of just foaming and venting.

George Croix

A real 'lifeline' is meant for short term use, when the person it's tossed to is in immediate need of help.
It's not meant to be something to hang onto for the rest of life.
Contrast that with 'government lifelines', where the truly needy and the dishonest scammers are treated the same, usually, these days, for life.
A person stealing a nickel from you and one taking 500 bucks are both still thieves.
Thievery and dishonesty have become acceptible ways to get money by virtue of the federal governments sanctioning of such while back and forthing over who's the most caring or some other meaningless blather, in return for votes.
In this county, it's sanctioned by signing up for 'free money' with the local shysters in return for a claim of 'harm'.
The concepts of integrity and honesty have become 'fundamentally changed' by way too many people.
Nutshell: If you can buy ciggies and booze and dope and designer clothes and stereos and 26" chrome wheels you can dam sure buy your own phone.

Kevin Lang

At least now, the telephone Lifeline does require annual recertification. If you fail to qualify at that time, then you either pick up the normal retail price of the line, or you lose it. Since the phones aren't program provided, it's up to the carrier if they require the handset to be returned.

gecroix, I have the same feelings as you on the qualifications. However, we both know that our government bureaucracies are not very adept at even simple qualification processes. Let's see if they can actually handle qualifying people for the service based on whether they already have a line and whether their income is at or below the bar. That's probably as complex as they're going to be able to handle for at least a few years. Checking to see how many 6-packs or cartons they're buying per month is something that's going to be a while for them to figure out.

Lars Faltskog

Upon reflecting this topic, I often notice the underprivileged perhaps buy cigarettes and beer in more proportion than the more affluent.

A simple reason is that the underprivileged do not have the luxury to buy more expensive types of entertainments. Many do not go to plays, nor do they have possible dollar resources to drive and pay for a recreational afternoon at Kemah boardwalk, etc. Again, are we envious of the underpriviledged who use whatever they have for ciggies, beer, and phone use? Aren't we better off than they? And, wouldn't they, if they had a choice, be more affluent and be able to pay for more than just ciggies, phones, and booze?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.