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
    Right, but you seem to be making the same mistake as marc. My comment was based on the relevance of restricting magazine capacity, probably more specifically with prevention of mass shootings in mind. On actual implementation, anything below 10 will likely never fly. Relevance above 10 is extremely low, unless possibly with minimization at extremely high numbers and then only in mobile/carry situations. Hemce I agree that focussing on those restrictions is not really a worthwhile effort. I have asked this same question many times before.
  2. SkyDekker
    I agree that it makes it less relevant. Relevance is probably based on the severity of the restriction. A restriction at capacity of 2 or 1 is much more relevant than restriction at capacity of 10 or more. So now you eliminate many classes of weapons totally Including hand guns and shot guns I am not eliminating anything, I was commenting on the relevance of restrictions on magazine capacity. There would be some relevance at the other extreme as well, when you restrict magazines to a minimum of say 5,000 rounds
  3. SkyDekker
    I agree that it makes it less relevant. Relevance is probably based on the severity of the restriction. A restriction at capacity of 2 or 1 is much more relevant than restriction at capacity of 10 or more.
  4. SkyDekker
    that's his point - you'll discount the bomb, and he'll claim that he can then discount the hammers - a pissing contest on who has the most outrageous strawman is really silly Simply not true. Marc was trying to make a logical argument regarding the banning of tools based on the possible actions of people who would think differently. However, for logic to be true, it has to hold up in all scenarios. So when we substituted a different tool, the logic fell apart for most people. This indicates that the argument is not logic based but emotion based. Marc has tried to frame all his arguments here as logical and the arguments of those not agreeing with him as based on pure emotion. Wendy got it, based on her post above. I don't think you, among others, were able to see past your dislike for me in assessing the situation.
  5. SkyDekker
    It wasn't a vague suggestion. Isn't an armed populace supposed to prevent Obama from being a threat to America? So, if he is a threat to America, wouldn't that mean the 2nd Amendment isn't working? Guess it is somewhat typical that first thoughts go to killing.
  6. SkyDekker
    Which was that your comparison to a ban on hammers and clubs was invalid.
  7. SkyDekker
    Marc, you have already declared this: Why would I have a discussion with you, that you have already deemed impossible?
  8. SkyDekker
    It was an argument based around your logic Marc. The logic was extended. Clearly that isn't off point. On a seperate note, I don't want to ban all rifles and see no rational to ban all rifles.
  9. SkyDekker
    You are talking about absolutes, declare something impossible but then want to try anyways?
  10. SkyDekker
    Right, it has to do with the logic you used and your willingness to extend that same logic to other issues. Since you are not, the original argument is therefor not supported by the logic presented and probably emotion based.
  11. SkyDekker
    Oh, if it was supposed to sarcasm, you are then in favour of liability insurance on guns.
  12. SkyDekker
    I don't think we can have much rational discussion about it then.
  13. SkyDekker
    Would you be in favour of allowing Iran and North Korea to develop and own nuclear weapons? the nuke stawman I wondered how long before this one came up You are going to have to explain to me how it is a strawman. Nuclear weapons are tools. Tools that are "allowed" to be owned by some countries and "banned" for other countries, mostly based on the ideology of the country (how they think). The banning is mostly based on the large amount of destruction possible with nuclear weapons.
  14. SkyDekker
    Marc we aren't talking about the effectiveness of the AWB, or how it was drafted, worded, or implemented. We were talking about the rational behind it. That is the point There is NONE! You think a whole bill was drafted, implemented and enforced with absolutely no rational behind it?
  15. SkyDekker
    No you have tasted the left wing and its media hype Mostly the right wing wishes to keep it to those who really need it The left uses giving it to more to gain power and money So how do we know that this imaginary welfare recipient in GM's case is a worthy recipient, and therefore should have access to cheap guns and ammunition, or an unworthy recipient?
  16. SkyDekker
    Marc we aren't talking about the effectiveness of the AWB, or how it was drafted, worded, or implemented. We were talking about the rational behind it.
  17. SkyDekker
    Would you be in favour of allowing Iran and North Korea to develop and own nuclear weapons?
  18. SkyDekker
    Marc, you may want to read the original post by Wendy again:
  19. SkyDekker
    Are you willing to continue this logic with other tools or only with guns?
  20. SkyDekker
    Uhm, I haven't seen an advocate for a total ban on guns. There is no specific right in the constitution on "assualt weapons". Wendy and I commented on the basic logic you used in your argument, without declaring a position either way. If anybody is using emotion in their debate, it is you.
  21. SkyDekker
    You are somewhat missing the point. In Wendy's example above an item is banned, but there are many tools left to accomplish the basic purpose of the tool banned. I know you don't agree with any type of ban, but in this case you are simply comparing apples to oranges.
  22. SkyDekker
    If he is such a threat to America, like many on the right have been claiming, don't you guys have a 2nd Amendment to a Constitution just for that purpose?
  23. SkyDekker
    Reason and logic...so refreshing.
  24. SkyDekker
    I thought the right wingers on this forum want to get rid of welfare and the poor should just not be so lazy? How can she have welfare cheques stolen if there is no welfare? No wonder you guys can't get elected, you make no sense...
  25. SkyDekker
    Hold on, when liberals propose anything to help the poor, the answer is usually that the poor simply don't work hard enough and are lazy. What level has society sunk to when guns are seen as more important than education, food and health care? You think a law requiring the poor to purchase liability insurance to own a gun is helping them? Wow.....that's off the charts even for you. Yes that is exactly what I wrote Amazes me that people will argue for cheap guns for the poor, but at the same time will argue against cheap education, food and health care for those same poor and see absolutely nothing wrong with those priorities.