Ideologic Enlightenment Quiz

Fact: It's too easy to get a gun in this country...too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns. Do we ignore the problem, or do we make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to have them? I know...it's a step toward taking guns away. No, it's not. There's a sane position, where people who hunt for food, or who want to protect themselves, can obtain a gun, or keep the ones they have. There is an absolute middle ground to this issue that very few people are considering. Is it OK with you to have some idiot with an automatic or semiautomatic weapon having lunch at the next table with you and your kids?

Floridatexan wrote:
Fact:  It's too easy to get a gun in this country...too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns. Do we ignore the problem, or do we make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to have them?  I know...it's a step toward taking guns away.  No, it's not.  There's a sane position, where people who hunt for food, or who want to protect themselves, can obtain a gun, or keep the ones they have.  There is an absolute middle ground to this issue that very few people are considering.  Is it OK with you to have some idiot with an automatic or semiautomatic weapon having lunch at the next table with you and your kids?

The only fact in your statement is that it's to easy for criminals to be able to obtain the items they want. But then that's been true about criminals since history began.

How are you going to define mentally ill and what gives you the right to take their rights away until such a time as they do something illegal?

But then your last sentence does say it all in the fact that you've a preconceived idea that people who do own firearms are beneath you and are the scum of the earth in your eyes.

If you're going to prejudge people because of the items they possess you're simply a progressive bigot with a agenda.

But then I'll bet you don't like a lot of things about other people.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuGzJVKtW6g

 

Floridatexan wrote:
Fact:  It's too easy to get a gun in this country...too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns.  Do we ignore the problem, or do we make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to have them?  

We need to enact the strictest gun control laws like they've done here. That will stop the gun crime...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/justice/chicago-deadly-weekend/

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If guns were illegal maybe they couldn't have carjacked the vehicle? Maybe a volt wouldn't have killed so many? If religion were outlawed maybe the kids wouldn't have been in harms way? Cmon peeps... there must be a govt solution here.

Are these comments your idea of what some might suggest as solutions to this event? Seriously?!  

He can't even communicate his own political philosophy, much less anyone else's.

boards of FL wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:If guns were illegal maybe they couldn't have carjacked the vehicle? Maybe a volt wouldn't have killed so many? If religion were outlawed maybe the kids wouldn't have been in harms way? Cmon peeps... there must be a govt solution here.

Are these comments your idea of what some might suggest as solutions to this event? Seriously?!  

He can't even communicate his own political philosophy, much less anyone else's.

Then you should be able to explain why in this instance the criminal is to blame...

while in other similar scenarios the gun is?

PkrBum wrote:Then you should be able to explain why in this instance the criminal is to blame...

while in other similar scenarios the gun is?

The criminals are to blame in this instance because they hijacked a car and then ran over a kid.

You'll have to show me whatever other example it is that you're talking about in regards to the gun if you want me to explain that to you as well.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Then you should be able to explain why in this instance the criminal is to blame...

while in other similar scenarios the gun is?

The criminals are to blame in this instance because they hijacked a car and then ran over a kid.

You'll have to show me whatever other example it is that you're talking about in regards to the gun if you want me to explain that to you as well.

As I've asked... without the gun would the odds of successfully carjacking have been greater or lessor?

Why isn't the gun the pivotal element in this crime?

PkrBum wrote:As I've asked... without the gun would the odds of successfully carjacking have been greater or lessor?

Why isn't the gun the pivotal element in this crime?

The gun likely made the commission of the crime easier. And depending on the local laws, the use of a gun may in fact serve to aggravate the charges or call for more punishment.

Beyond that, what is it that you're asking me here, exactly? Some guys hijacked a car and then killed a kid when they ran him over. Obviously, these guys will be charged for this.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:As I've asked... without the gun would the odds of successfully carjacking have been greater or lessor?

Why isn't the gun the pivotal element in this crime?

The gun likely made the commission of the crime easier.  And depending on the local laws, the use of a gun may in fact serve to aggravate the charges or call for more punishment.

Beyond that, what is it that you're asking me here, exactly?  Some guys hijacked a car and then killed a kid when they ran him over.  Obviously, these guys will be charged for this.  

May aggravate the charge....the use of a gun does aggravate the charges when involved in the commission of a felony.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:As I've asked... without the gun would the odds of successfully carjacking have been greater or lessor?

Why isn't the gun the pivotal element in this crime?

The gun likely made the commission of the crime easier.  And depending on the local laws, the use of a gun may in fact serve to aggravate the charges or call for more punishment.

Beyond that, what is it that you're asking me here, exactly?  Some guys hijacked a car and then killed a kid when they ran him over.  Obviously, these guys will be charged for this.  

Oh no! The gun is the pivotal piece and perpetrator in the commission of this crime. The guys that borrowed the car are misunderstood victims of their environment and would never have committed the crime if someone had cared and provided them a nourishing environment. Obviously society has let these poor guys down and we need more social workers to interact with people such as this to prevent further incidents of this nature and stricter gun laws to prevent them from obtaining a gun. Perhaps a social worker could have prevented them from making such a poor choice in life like going out and obtaining the gun that was the true perpetrator of the crime.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGyOaCXr8Lw

  

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Fact:  It's too easy to get a gun in this country...too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns.  Do we ignore the problem, or do we make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to have them?  

We need to enact the strictest gun control laws like they've done here.  That will stop the gun crime...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/justice/chicago-deadly-weekend/

Bob, I know you have never met a fence you couldn't straddle but citing the crime wave with the use of guns in Chi Town is a straw man . . . . they are so easily brought into the area from other gun friendly areas so citing this is, for a lack of a better description, is . . . well . . . . bullshit. lol

knothead wrote:

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Fact:  It's too easy to get a gun in this country...too easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns.  Do we ignore the problem, or do we make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to have them?  

We need to enact the strictest gun control laws like they've done here.  That will stop the gun crime...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/justice/chicago-deadly-weekend/

Bob, I know you have never met a fence you couldn't straddle but citing the crime wave with the use of guns in Chi Town is a straw man . . . . they are so easily brought into the area from other gun friendly areas so citing this is, for a lack of a better description, is  . . . well . . . . bullshit. lol  

Just as they're so easily brought in from other gun friendly countries so citing gun control as a solution, for a lack of a better description, is . . . well . . . . bullshit. lol

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go9kV4nxsfk

  

Whelp... turns out they are convicted felons... and the carjacked woman was sexually assaulted.

Maybe the real pivotal issue here is that the criminals didn't follow traffic laws? Keep working comrades.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/breaking/?wss=/philly/news/breaking&id=268895461&

Jonathan Rosa, 19, of Fairhill, and Cornelius Crawford, 24, of Logan, were also charged Monday with robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy and related offenses - including sexually assaulting the woman they allegedly carjacked Friday morning.

Also injured was a 45-year-old real estate agent who was carjacked, and then forced to perform oral sex on both men after they forced their way into her car.

Crawford has a long criminal history, with 10 prior arrests for robbery, thefts and forgery.

He was paroled a year ago after serving six years of a six- to 15-year sentence in connection with a 2007 robbery spree. Records reviewed by The Inquirer show that, at the time of his release, state Department of Corrections and parole board testing had determined that he had a "high risk of violent re-offending."

His extensive criminal history began in earnest in 2007, when at the age 16 he was sentenced to 6 to 15 years for a robbery spree earlier that year.

In a ten-day period, court records show, Crawford committed three robberies, four blocks apart. The records show he had accrued eight serious misconduct offenses while in prison, most during his first months of incarceration.

He was paroled on April 7, 2013 - just four days after he reached his minimum sentence - and released to a North Philadelphia halfway house.

According to records released Monday by the state Board of Probation and Parole, Crawford was granted parole after demonstrating "motivation for success" and "positive institutional behavior."

He also got a positive recommendation from the state Department of Corrections.

Crawford, however, violated the terms of his parole, and in August 2013 was transferred to Coleman Hall, a parole violators' center in Juanita Park. His parole was revoked because he had "changed his residence without permission" and was ruled "not amenable to parole conditions," according to the state Board of Probation and Parole.

He was released from Coleman in February of this year and settled in Logan.

PkrBum wrote:Whelp... turns out they are convicted felons... and the carjacked woman was sexually assaulted.

Maybe the real pivotal issue here is that the criminals didn't follow traffic laws? Keep working comrades.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/breaking/?wss=/philly/news/breaking&id=268895461&

Jonathan Rosa, 19, of Fairhill, and Cornelius Crawford, 24, of Logan, were also charged Monday with robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy and related offenses - including sexually assaulting the woman they allegedly carjacked Friday morning.

Also injured was a 45-year-old real estate agent who was carjacked, and then forced to perform oral sex on both men after they forced their way into her car.

Crawford has a long criminal history, with 10 prior arrests for robbery, thefts and forgery.

He was paroled a year ago after serving six years of a six- to 15-year sentence in connection with a 2007 robbery spree. Records reviewed by The Inquirer show that, at the time of his release, state Department of Corrections and parole board testing had determined that he had a "high risk of violent re-offending."

His extensive criminal history began in earnest in 2007, when at the age 16 he was sentenced to 6 to 15 years for a robbery spree earlier that year.

In a ten-day period, court records show, Crawford committed three robberies, four blocks apart. The records show he had accrued eight serious misconduct offenses while in prison, most during his first months of incarceration.

He was paroled on April 7, 2013 - just four days after he reached his minimum sentence - and released to a North Philadelphia halfway house.

According to records released Monday by the state Board of Probation and Parole, Crawford was granted parole after demonstrating "motivation for success" and "positive institutional behavior."

He also got a positive recommendation from the state Department of Corrections.

Crawford, however, violated the terms of his parole, and in August 2013 was transferred to Coleman Hall, a parole violators' center in Juanita Park. His parole was revoked because he had "changed his residence without permission" and was ruled "not amenable to parole conditions," according to the state Board of Probation and Parole.

He was released from Coleman in February of this year and settled in Logan.

The liberal lawyers sal, bds and seaoat worship have now turned the criminal justice system into a sick joke.

knothead wrote:

Bob, I know you have never met a fence you couldn't straddle  

Does it sound to you like my expressions of hatred of violent criminals is "straddling a fence"? If it does, then I hate to see what I would be writing if I fell off that fence. lol

Let me clear up what is apparently a misunderstanding.

That toaster avatar doesn't apply to everything,  knothead.  It really is only a response to Ann Coulter's quote that "you're either a democrat or a republican if you have an IQ higher than a toaster".

I'm not even riding a fence when it comes to democrats and republicans.  Or liberals and conservatives either one for that matter.  There's no fence sitting about it.  I despise all four labels,  democrat,  republican,  liberal and conservative so I'm definitely not on any fence.

I'm a "toaster" only because Ann Coulter says so.  That's the only point of it.
It has nothing to do with me being wishy washy with my opinions.
It's true that I have some strong opinions that are in agreement with republicans/conservatives and I have other strong opinions which are in agreement with democrats/liberals.   But it's the Ann Coulters and sals and seaoats and others who mislabel me a fence sitter.  For them,  you have to always tow the liberal line or always tow the conservative line on every issue and if you don't they call you a fence sitter.  That's just bullcrap.  

One example.  
I'm all law and order when it comes to violent criminals just like the conservatives are.
BUT,  I'm solidly with the liberals when it comes to the fucked up wars started by the neocons.

When Moses came down from the mountain with the Commandments,  there was not one which ordered us to be all conservative or all liberal.  Or all democrat or all republican.  Ann Coulter and Sal and seaoat believe that to be the case but they are not my messengers from god.
But neither was Moses for that matter. He was just some bearded old coot who means nothing to me.

Bob wrote:Let me clear up what is apparently a misunderstanding.

That toaster avatar doesn't apply to everything,  knothead.  It really is only a response to Ann Coulter's quote that "you're either a democrat or a republican if you have an IQ higher than a toaster".

I'm not even riding a fence when it comes to democrats and republicans.  Or liberals and conservatives either one for that matter.  There's no fence sitting about it.  I despise all four labels,  democrat,  republican,  liberal and conservative so I'm definitely not on any fence.

I'm a "toaster" only because Ann Coulter says so.  That's the only point of it.
It has nothing to do with me being wishy washy with my opinions.
It's true that I have some strong opinions that are in agreement with republicans/conservatives and I have other strong opinions which are in agreement with democrats/liberals.   But it's the Ann Coulters and sals and seaoats and others who mislabel me a fence sitter.  For them,  you have to always tow the liberal line or always tow the conservative line on every issue and if you don't they call you a fence sitter.  That's just bullcrap.  

One example.  
I'm all law and order when it comes to violent criminals just like the conservatives are.
BUT,  I'm solidly with the liberals when it comes to the fucked up wars started by the neocons.

When Moses came down from the mountain with the Commandments,  there was not one which ordered us to be all conservative or all liberal.  Or all democrat or all republican.  Ann Coulter and Sal and seaoat believe that to be the case but they are not my messengers from god.
But neither was Moses for that matter.  He was just some bearded old coot who means nothing to me.

Dammit Bob, you have to pick one side or the other......according to our resident dems.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Bob wrote:Let me clear up what is apparently a misunderstanding.

That toaster avatar doesn't apply to everything,  knothead.  It really is only a response to Ann Coulter's quote that "you're either a democrat or a republican if you have an IQ higher than a toaster".

I'm not even riding a fence when it comes to democrats and republicans.  Or liberals and conservatives either one for that matter.  There's no fence sitting about it.  I despise all four labels,  democrat,  republican,  liberal and conservative so I'm definitely not on any fence.

I'm a "toaster" only because Ann Coulter says so.  That's the only point of it.
It has nothing to do with me being wishy washy with my opinions.
It's true that I have some strong opinions that are in agreement with republicans/conservatives and I have other strong opinions which are in agreement with democrats/liberals.   But it's the Ann Coulters and sals and seaoats and others who mislabel me a fence sitter.  For them,  you have to always tow the liberal line or always tow the conservative line on every issue and if you don't they call you a fence sitter.  That's just bullcrap.  

One example.  
I'm all law and order when it comes to violent criminals just like the conservatives are.
BUT,  I'm solidly with the liberals when it comes to the fucked up wars started by the neocons.

When Moses came down from the mountain with the Commandments,  there was not one which ordered us to be all conservative or all liberal.  Or all democrat or all republican.  Ann Coulter and Sal and seaoat believe that to be the case but they are not my messengers from god.
But neither was Moses for that matter.  He was just some bearded old coot who means nothing to me.

Dammit Bob,  you have to pick one side or the other......according to our resident dems.

Not at all joani, Bob is one the most interesting posters and one which I do enjoy reading. Bob has the capacity to straddle fences perhaps because he is able to see that each political narrative has strengths and weaknesses and that is a quality I appreciate. I was razzing ole Bob a tad with my comment that he never met a fence he couldn't straddle . . . carry on!

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:As I've asked... without the gun would the odds of successfully carjacking have been greater or lessor?

Why isn't the gun the pivotal element in this crime?

The gun likely made the commission of the crime easier.  And depending on the local laws, the use of a gun may in fact serve to aggravate the charges or call for more punishment.

Beyond that, what is it that you're asking me here, exactly?  Some guys hijacked a car and then killed a kid when they ran him over.  Obviously, these guys will be charged for this.  

Oh no! The gun is the pivotal piece and perpetrator in the commission of this crime. The guys that borrowed the car are misunderstood victims of their environment and would never have committed the crime if someone had cared and provided them a nourishing environment. Obviously society has let these poor guys down and we need more social workers to interact with people such as this to prevent further incidents of this nature and stricter gun laws to prevent them from obtaining a gun. Perhaps a social worker could have prevented them from making such a poor choice in life like going out and obtaining the gun that was the true perpetrator of the crime.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGyOaCXr8Lw

  

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

PkrBum wrote:Whelp... turns out they are convicted felons... and the carjacked woman was sexually assaulted.

Maybe the real pivotal issue here is that the criminals didn't follow traffic laws? Keep working comrades.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/breaking/?wss=/philly/news/breaking&id=268895461&

Jonathan Rosa, 19, of Fairhill, and Cornelius Crawford, 24, of Logan, were also charged Monday with robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy and related offenses - including sexually assaulting the woman they allegedly carjacked Friday morning.

Also injured was a 45-year-old real estate agent who was carjacked, and then forced to perform oral sex on both men after they forced their way into her car.

Crawford has a long criminal history, with 10 prior arrests for robbery, thefts and forgery.

He was paroled a year ago after serving six years of a six- to 15-year sentence in connection with a 2007 robbery spree. Records reviewed by The Inquirer show that, at the time of his release, state Department of Corrections and parole board testing had determined that he had a "high risk of violent re-offending."

His extensive criminal history began in earnest in 2007, when at the age 16 he was sentenced to 6 to 15 years for a robbery spree earlier that year.

In a ten-day period, court records show, Crawford committed three robberies, four blocks apart. The records show he had accrued eight serious misconduct offenses while in prison, most during his first months of incarceration.

He was paroled on April 7, 2013 - just four days after he reached his minimum sentence - and released to a North Philadelphia halfway house.

According to records released Monday by the state Board of Probation and Parole, Crawford was granted parole after demonstrating "motivation for success" and "positive institutional behavior."

He also got a positive recommendation from the state Department of Corrections.

Crawford, however, violated the terms of his parole, and in August 2013 was transferred to Coleman Hall, a parole violators' center in Juanita Park. His parole was revoked because he had "changed his residence without permission" and was ruled "not amenable to parole conditions," according to the state Board of Probation and Parole.

He was released from Coleman in February of this year and settled in Logan.

Where you ever able to determine the point it was that you were trying to make with this thread? Or are you still just as cloudy on that as you are with your own politics?

Joanimaroni wrote:

Dammit Bob,  you have to pick one side or the other......according to our resident dems.

That's true,  joani.  But most of the resident "repubs" believe the same thing just like Ann Coulter does.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Whelp... turns out they are convicted felons... and the carjacked woman was sexually assaulted.

Maybe the real pivotal issue here is that the criminals didn't follow traffic laws? Keep working comrades.

http://mobile.philly.com/news/breaking/?wss=/philly/news/breaking&id=268895461&

Jonathan Rosa, 19, of Fairhill, and Cornelius Crawford, 24, of Logan, were also charged Monday with robbery, kidnapping, conspiracy and related offenses - including sexually assaulting the woman they allegedly carjacked Friday morning.

Also injured was a 45-year-old real estate agent who was carjacked, and then forced to perform oral sex on both men after they forced their way into her car.

Crawford has a long criminal history, with 10 prior arrests for robbery, thefts and forgery.

He was paroled a year ago after serving six years of a six- to 15-year sentence in connection with a 2007 robbery spree. Records reviewed by The Inquirer show that, at the time of his release, state Department of Corrections and parole board testing had determined that he had a "high risk of violent re-offending."

His extensive criminal history began in earnest in 2007, when at the age 16 he was sentenced to 6 to 15 years for a robbery spree earlier that year.

In a ten-day period, court records show, Crawford committed three robberies, four blocks apart. The records show he had accrued eight serious misconduct offenses while in prison, most during his first months of incarceration.

He was paroled on April 7, 2013 - just four days after he reached his minimum sentence - and released to a North Philadelphia halfway house.

According to records released Monday by the state Board of Probation and Parole, Crawford was granted parole after demonstrating "motivation for success" and "positive institutional behavior."

He also got a positive recommendation from the state Department of Corrections.

Crawford, however, violated the terms of his parole, and in August 2013 was transferred to Coleman Hall, a parole violators' center in Juanita Park. His parole was revoked because he had "changed his residence without permission" and was ruled "not amenable to parole conditions," according to the state Board of Probation and Parole.

He was released from Coleman in February of this year and settled in Logan.

Where you ever able to determine the point it was that you were trying to make with this thread? Or are you still just as cloudy on that as you are with your own politics?

There's nothing cloudy here... take a look at the poll. Y'all just want to pick and choose your ethics.

In this instance the criminal was to blame with liberals... but what if those kids were hit by stray fire instead of the car?

I think we both know the answer.

PkrBum wrote:In this instance the criminal was to blame with liberals... but what if those kids were hit by stray fire instead of the car?

I think we both know the answer.

The criminal?

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Bob wrote:Let me clear up what is apparently a misunderstanding.

That toaster avatar doesn't apply to everything,  knothead.  It really is only a response to Ann Coulter's quote that "you're either a democrat or a republican if you have an IQ higher than a toaster".

I'm not even riding a fence when it comes to democrats and republicans.  Or liberals and conservatives either one for that matter.  There's no fence sitting about it.  I despise all four labels,  democrat,  republican,  liberal and conservative so I'm definitely not on any fence.

I'm a "toaster" only because Ann Coulter says so.  That's the only point of it.
It has nothing to do with me being wishy washy with my opinions.
It's true that I have some strong opinions that are in agreement with republicans/conservatives and I have other strong opinions which are in agreement with democrats/liberals.   But it's the Ann Coulters and sals and seaoats and others who mislabel me a fence sitter.  For them,  you have to always tow the liberal line or always tow the conservative line on every issue and if you don't they call you a fence sitter.  That's just bullcrap.  

One example.  
I'm all law and order when it comes to violent criminals just like the conservatives are.
BUT,  I'm solidly with the liberals when it comes to the fucked up wars started by the neocons.

When Moses came down from the mountain with the Commandments,  there was not one which ordered us to be all conservative or all liberal.  Or all democrat or all republican.  Ann Coulter and Sal and seaoat believe that to be the case but they are not my messengers from god.
But neither was Moses for that matter.  He was just some bearded old coot who means nothing to me.

Dammit Bob,  you have to pick one side or the other......according to our resident dems.

Not at all joani, Bob is one the most interesting posters and one which I do enjoy reading.  Bob has the capacity to straddle fences perhaps because he is able to see that each political narrative has strengths and weaknesses and that is a quality I appreciate.  I was razzing ole Bob a tad with my comment that he never met a fence he couldn't straddle . . . carry on!

And I was razzing him as well! Bob makes up his own mind.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:As I've asked... without the gun would the odds of successfully carjacking have been greater or lessor?

Why isn't the gun the pivotal element in this crime?

The gun likely made the commission of the crime easier.  And depending on the local laws, the use of a gun may in fact serve to aggravate the charges or call for more punishment.

Beyond that, what is it that you're asking me here, exactly?  Some guys hijacked a car and then killed a kid when they ran him over.  Obviously, these guys will be charged for this.  

Oh no! The gun is the pivotal piece and perpetrator in the commission of this crime. The guys that borrowed the car are misunderstood victims of their environment and would never have committed the crime if someone had cared and provided them a nourishing environment. Obviously society has let these poor guys down and we need more social workers to interact with people such as this to prevent further incidents of this nature and stricter gun laws to prevent them from obtaining a gun. Perhaps a social worker could have prevented them from making such a poor choice in life like going out and obtaining the gun that was the true perpetrator of the crime.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGyOaCXr8Lw

  

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

SOURPUSS NURSING HOME

For those who lack a sense of humor

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc2jsjnt-HY