SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    A statement without any backup. In my opinion it did have the desired effect. It reduced DUIs. Yes, they have also had an effect. Are they? Both seem to happen quite frequently, specially the shooting someone part. Americans seem to have a significant problem with self control.
  2. SkyDekker
    You don't think that if people were allowed to drink and drive the number of DUI would go up? DUI went up in Colorado after the legalization of MJ. Actually, the liquor market in Colorado is pretty tightly regulated. As a consumer for instance you would not be allowed to buy large quantities from a distributor, only from a retailer. Each brand only has one distributor.
  3. SkyDekker
    Congress has spent more time looking into Benghazi than: 9/11 Watergate JFK assassination Pearl Harbour
  4. SkyDekker
    The rapture part is indeed untrue. It really is worse. You don't have to school your children at all, rapture or not.
  5. SkyDekker
    Yet you still can't drive while drinking a beer, even if it is your first one, nor buy beer at the gas station. You can't even have a beer within reach, nor can your passenger drink it. But you are right, alcohol didn't get controlled.
  6. SkyDekker
    These two contradict each other
  7. SkyDekker
    The math doesn't matter. The average Trump supporter will just believe what he says, because that is what they want to hear.
  8. SkyDekker
  9. SkyDekker
    If this is all true, then why do Republicans hate Obama so much?
  10. SkyDekker
    And now Farage has stepped down as leader of UKIP, but of course kept his seat as MEP...
  11. SkyDekker
    Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals? If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place? No. Criminals, murderous and non murderous would become much bolder as ALL law abiding citizens would be unarmed. Expanded police services would be needed. Current gun owners that are currently fully law abiding would either become defenseless or become criminals just from a law change. The black market for arms would be greatly expanded increasing chances for currently banned weapons and criminsls restricted from owning weapons to get one. Guns wouldn't go away, they'd just go underground. Google prohibition and it's impacts long after being repealed. Ah ok. Yes, fully agreed. It would take quite some time before any positive benefits would arise.
  12. SkyDekker
    recognize: 1 - The 'no fly - no buy' crowd are advocating for a subjective removal of people's rights (travel, and property ownership). Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries 2 - Trump wants to restrict travel and immigration based on nothing but subjective critieria. Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries and these people THINK they are on opposite sides - bah, they are just fighting over who's right they want to trample on and how. Most of the time they want to trample the same rights and are just arguing over how to spin it Politics is a freaking tragedy and comedy all at the same time. Yes, being able to own a gun and being able to reside in your country of birth are clearly the same thing.
  13. SkyDekker
    Mexicans will pay for it though, so it won't be a problem in the US at all.
  14. SkyDekker
    http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/03/playing-the-man-and-not-the-ball-2/ Basically Kallend's go-to move, attack the person when the facts are working against you. Keep shouting "Facebook!" and "Plagiarism!" and do not discuss the facts in the CDC study. Derek V What a load of utter crap. Don't people know how to scroll anymore? Brent posted first. Kallend then posted a WaPo article with the opposing view. Rush played the man. Brent didn't want to deal with the opposing view and called it biased, probably not realizing what he copied from Facebook wasn't from CDC but from Guns and Ammo. And we are off to the races.... (just scroll up, it is all there to see, really not that difficult.)
  15. SkyDekker
    Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals? If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place?
  16. SkyDekker
    Of course he has. He knows the mess they are in, no one in their right mind would want to lead for the next couple of years.
  17. SkyDekker
    It is 3 years old. Why are you now bringing it forward as this earth shattering scientific study putting an end to the gun debate? If that was the case, wouldn't the debate have ended 3 years ago when this report actually came out?
  18. SkyDekker
    Only if you want to see some results in a few decades. Other then that, don't repeal it and continue to see multitudes of mass shootings. Yes! it is really rough to be part of a civilized society where our first instinct isn't murdering each other, where we are free to decide which washroom we want to use, and when we get sick we don't get bankrupted by health care costs. If only we could be like you.....
  19. SkyDekker
    You don't believe in science.
  20. SkyDekker
    Probably true in your case. But then you consider anything left of the KKK to be socialist.
  21. SkyDekker
    Saying that a limit on magazine capacity would not be unconstitutional isn't the same as saying it should be restricted to items only available in those days.
  22. SkyDekker
    Says the guy who gets his information from Facebook. Funny stuff, considering it came out 3 years ago. Says the guy who wants to discuss a facebook post, regurgitating 3 year old information. But, since he just saw it on facebook recently, thinks it is new information.
  23. SkyDekker
    yes they did the first machine gun was patented in 1718 the Puckle gun Correct, should have written quick succession. I would be more than willing to allow the operation of the Puckle Gun, it shoots 9 rounds per minute.
  24. SkyDekker
    Let me go find some "facts" on Facebook. Plus the content isn't shocking.
  25. SkyDekker
    Ooh, you trapped me. Very impressive. My point was limiting magazine size to ten rounds won't have an impact. If you want to limit weapons to single shot, then sure it will impact the number of rounds a shooter, any shooter, can get off. Maybe you think they should limit magazines to two rounds, or five. If you do, say so. Otherwise we're not going anywhere. No, what they should do is repeal the 2nd amendment. You have shown as a society you are unable to handle the responsibility. I mean you guys can't even decide which damn bathroom to use. It would take a couple of decades, but eventually it would make a difference. I didn't trap you. You said limiting magazine size was not useful. Clearly it can be, if it is significantly enough reduced. To Bolas: restricting magazine size to 2 would not be a restriction on the second amendment. They didn't even have guns that could shoot more than two bullets in succession when it was written.