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
    Which generally makes the weapons significantly harder to acquire and/or not as effective. Both a deterrent in the long run. What frightens me is the prospect that firearms will be made as illegal and unavailable to malevolent types as, say, heroin and cocaine. Meh. It works frighteningly well in the rest of the civilized world. But then we had far less to start with.
  2. SkyDekker
    Why not? The safer table saw is significantly more expensive, yet there is a market for it. Why should that preemptively be stopped for guns? I could imagine that as a parent with young kids in the house, you may want to spend more money on a gun that can only be fired by 1 specific person. You buy it for them then. Money does not seem to be an issue for you I would buy it for my family if it was available. But it simply isn't available in the US. Actually the product is actively being prevented from being sold. Which I believe you are in support of. So, why are you in support of not allowing a safer version of one inanimate object, but allowing it for another inanimate object?
  3. SkyDekker
    So therefor it shouldn't be marketed or produced at all?
  4. SkyDekker
    Which generally makes the weapons significantly harder to acquire and/or not as effective. Both a deterrent in the long run. I know of a couple of groups for sure here in the US that would love to see it harder for the people to have weapons to protect themselves ISSIS is one that comes to mind. Clearly that is why ISIS planted Obama.
  5. SkyDekker
    Why not? The safer table saw is significantly more expensive, yet there is a market for it. Why should that preemptively be stopped for guns? I could imagine that as a parent with young kids in the house, you may want to spend more money on a gun that can only be fired by 1 specific person.
  6. SkyDekker
    Bullshit. There are now table saws which stop immediately upon contact with flesh preventing major injury. Quite a significant improvement over 20 years ago. Now that I had not heard of! http://www.sawstop.com/why-sawstop/the-technology But they do come with a high price http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006G36V4E Compared to others https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sears+contractor+table+saw&safe=active And I know there are many in between Right, so we do tend to try to make the actual object safer, not just the people using the object. Yet, for some reason when it comes to guns, supposedly we cannot talk about the object and only about the people. We really don't do that with any other objects. As a side note, I wonder if the US constitution is the only constitution that specifically protects an object.
  7. SkyDekker
    Which generally makes the weapons significantly harder to acquire and/or not as effective. Both a deterrent in the long run.
  8. SkyDekker
    Bullshit. There are now table saws which stop immediately upon contact with flesh preventing major injury. Quite a significant improvement over 20 years ago.
  9. SkyDekker
    I agree with much of what you are saying, but this statement is simply too one sided. Table saws are inanimate objects. However when people start losing body parts on them, we both teach safety and altered the equipment. With almost all inanimate objects, we look at both training people and make alterations to the product to make it safer to use.
  10. SkyDekker
    I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it? To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic. There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US. Inciting panic is almost never a good idea. If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound. Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning?
  11. SkyDekker
    You do realize a great majority of the people we bring to the charity hospital are African American uninsured and most likely democrat so that's 2 strikes for you care for a third. Alex, I'll take what is not understanding an analogy for $1,000
  12. SkyDekker
    I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it?
  13. SkyDekker
    First of all, not one person is running the country. Personal feelings should have very little part in governing or leading, specially when it comes to a country. Invading a country cause it feels like the right thing to do, is not a justification I would want. Even if I agree with the action.
  14. SkyDekker
    Not sure what feelings have to do with being President?
  15. SkyDekker
    Yeah, been there once or twice.
  16. SkyDekker
    Yes absolutely. Media got to her first and told her what to say!
  17. SkyDekker
    I see what side of the long running dispute you are on. There is any dispute? Only by the uninformed, I am sure. Sure is, actually the Belgian claim is pretty unlikely. It would involve poor people experimenting with very expensive product.
  18. SkyDekker
    I see what side of the long running dispute you are on.
  19. SkyDekker
    He was picked up after the shooting at PP, muttering about "no more baby parts". And he just made that connection at random? That is just a liberal media lie to make the right look bad. Happens all the time. Lamestream media and stuff.
  20. SkyDekker
    Not sure I agree with that. Would be a negative impact on the environment. Lead is pretty poisonous.
  21. SkyDekker
    True, a nut who wasn't smart enough to see the Planned Parenthood story for what it really was. Who believed the baby parts profit bit, who believed they are mainly performing abortions. Who believed the implication from the right that they needed to be stopped at all cost. To me, the idiots who propagated the biased videos, who turned this into something it wasn't, have just as much blood on their hands. Actions have consequences.
  22. SkyDekker
    We are talking about reality, not a rule book. Fine, then in reality what difference does it make?
  23. SkyDekker
    Kind of like American Patriotism. You are either with us, or against us. Freedom fries baby!
  24. SkyDekker
    It's not that hard. It's about lead bullets and lead shot being used by hunters contaminating the environment. Several states have restrictions on where lead can and can not be used. I don't know if there were rumblings about EPA restrictions, or if this is just the ammo lobby getting out in front. But the core issue is the possibility of lead poisoning. Responsible hunters have mostly already switched to alternatives. Lead is not used for water fowl hunting and is not to be used around waterways But States like CA tried to used rigged science to say lead bullets were poisoning the condor (which was a lie). Groups then sued the EPA to try and ban lead bullets that way. Also, state DNR's have tried to issue lead bullets bans but for the most part have been stopped This just takes away the EPA as a tool for the wackos that are out there (and limits the wackos that are part of the EPA too) What is the downside to not allowing lead in bullets?
  25. SkyDekker
    Yeah you may think that. But I don't think the US is far away from having widespread support for restricting the 2nd amendment for Muslims or those that look like it.