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
    In your hypothetical situation, I am sure, since you'll move the goal posts until it fits your hypothesis. In every situation? Not at all. Anyways, in the end it all depends on how the policy is written. There rae plenty scenarios in which liability insurance could come into play, all depending on the policy. If you want to keep coming up with hypothetical situations in which insurance would be impossible, well enjoy your mental masturbation.
  2. SkyDekker
    Except he didn't pull anything out of his pants. Reminds me of the guy who was told to get his license and was promptly shot when he went and got his license.
  3. SkyDekker
    You can't insure illegal activity no. But you can insure yourself against illegal activity. The Lloyd's insurance market is quite famous for underwriting all kinds of unusual insurance policies. Can you obtain insurance against your son stealing your firearms and shooting up an elementary school. You absolutely could, the question is if you can afford the premium. Again, all depends on the premiums charged. Insurance and oddsmaking are pretty similar.
  4. SkyDekker
    Yes you can post on the internet how you are going to kill somebody and be protected by the Supreme Court....or you can walk down the street and do as you are told and get shot...because circumstances and body language. Sorry, just doesn't make much sense.
  5. SkyDekker
    Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise of firearm statistics on the internet is extremely poor, and the data cited in the articles I have found are quite old, but it would seem the prevalence of non-LEO people making justified defensive shoots and inadvertently hitting bystanders is extremely low. (In one six-year data set for Miami-Dade that was mentioned there were zero occurances.) I'd still be interested to hear of more hypothetical situations where people feel liability insurance would actually cover the incident. You are asking an impossible question. It all depends on how the policy is worded. You can buy insurance against anything and everything.
  6. SkyDekker
    I can verify that the trained attack pit bull my neighbor has isn't a threat today. If I had illegal substances in my home and the cops called and said they'd like to stop by and take a look, say Monday around 3pm, what do you think I might do with those substances? Point being I could bury that contraband in my backyard and they'd never be able to find it. You can only verify that something isn't where you thought it might be and you were unable to find it anywhere else. I can verify now that legal gun owners aren't a threat today, but they may use their guns illegally tomorrow. Clearly all guns should be confiscated.
  7. SkyDekker
    Like I said...it would have been quite the claim. Insurance companies routinely dispute coverage, that doesn't mean insurance is therefor useless, which is what the argument seems to be earlier in the thread.
  8. SkyDekker
    Pretty decent explanation of why there is no reason lol http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2009/12/speech-therapy.html
  9. SkyDekker
    Only because I am not in favour of giving prisoners more rights than law abiding citizens. I see it as both providing (what is supposed to be a) painless death to somebody who cannot stand the future they are facing. I am a strong proponent of euthanasia and would be offended (not that really means anything lol) if it was offered for prisoners but not for me.
  10. SkyDekker
    It would have been no claim at all, since insurance policies don't cover intentional criminal acts. Of the policy holder. The perpetrator of Sandy Hook would not have been the policy holder.
  11. SkyDekker
    I like this idea, but only if euthanasia is legalized. I'm for both. But I see no reason to make one contingent upon legalization of the other. They are both independently important enough to not treat like negotiation chips. I don't see it as a bargaining chip. Don't understand why you would legalize euthanasia for prisoners, but not for the rest of the population.
  12. SkyDekker
    I don't. Bush II may have though.
  13. SkyDekker
    Sandy Hook would have been quite the claim under such a policy. I can see some uses for it, though not sure it really accomplishes anything. This "argument" usually comes up when the somewhat idiotic comparison of guns and cars happens.
  14. SkyDekker

    FIFA

    SkyDekker replied to ryoder's topic in Speakers Corner

    And to tie it all in, a dz.com poster is featured in that clip.
  15. SkyDekker
    I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well. Not if you prescribe to the notion that version 2 happened because version 1 wasn't handled properly.
  16. SkyDekker
    I like this idea, but only if euthanasia is legalized.
  17. SkyDekker
    Rush, I have given up on replying to you on subject. You will twist and turn and move the goal posts so many times, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just happened to see that story and figured it fit here.
  18. SkyDekker
    And then some days there is a story of someone going far beyond what he has to do.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/01/a-texas-cop-had-to-tell-teen-his-parents-had-been-killed-then-he-stood-in-for-them-at-teens-graduation/?tid=sm_tw
  19. SkyDekker
    Well you have at least one other idiot on your side. How does one expect to get a decent government when you elect absolute idiots to populate it? http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/01/man-cant-change-climate-only-god-can-says-senate-chair-of-environment-public-works/
  20. SkyDekker
    If that was such a big fear, why supply them to him in the first place? History shows the rest of the world should be more in fear of the US using them.
  21. SkyDekker
    there was much more to it than that but the left lies just keep flowing Yes in your reality the war in Iraq was due to lies from the left. I can see how that would make sense to you. And to your other question, I am not the one claiming that I knew what was in those trucks. That is another poster.
  22. SkyDekker
    I know you do. In fact I think you want to believe it so badly that you would not really accept any evidence to the contrary. Which of course is exactly what you accuse John of doing. Which is what makes it absolutely priceless.
  23. SkyDekker
    Absolutely priceless.
  24. SkyDekker
    Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence for a civilian. Not sure why you think it would be for LEO.
  25. SkyDekker
    Not really. If you want to ride around with a three piece patch (in some states even any patch) and you have not approach your local dominant for permission, you will be asked to defend your right to wear it. And there are very few in teh US who care that an organization which supposedly only consists of buddies who like to ride together, will very violently enforce a dress code across a state. Obviously if a muslim would state he would violently attack anybody not adhering to his dress code, there would be a national outcry. I think that was the point that was being made.