SkyDekker
-
Content
21,691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
96 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
Canada
Everything posted by SkyDekker
-
We've had unusually little snow and warmer than usual temps in Toronto
-
^^ Seconded!!!!! (Except not from BC, just Ontario.)
-
No it's not. It's called an 8 ball and is black cause their average "size" is 8"........ours is only "6". Pool was clearly invented by white women who liked big black dick..... -
That's not what I wrote. I think the policy is great and makes perfect sense. Her execution of said policy was piss poor. I'm done trying to explain my stance. Your a professor and am assuming have an IQ above 100. With that in mind, I know you can understand what I am saying.
-
Are you sure the officer had their phone number? When 911 dispatches, do they give the phone number directly to the officer? No, I am not sure. But I am sure that the dispatcher had access to the phone number and that the cop had access to the dispatcher. She put herself in a stupid situation and shot herself out of it. Was the shooting justified, sure, but it was still stupid for her to get into that situation. And you get the common reaction from cops: I am justified to use my gun......but am completely unwilling to discuss how I could have been so stupid to get myself into that situation.
-
Would you hang out with Sarah Palin? (Guys Allowed Thread)
SkyDekker replied to RustyOats's topic in The Bonfire
if I do hang out with her, will she have to write on her hand to remind herself to say hello? -
I take that as you being either unwilling or unable to discuss the rest of the post. Can't say I am surprised.
-
You yourself in an earlier post above agreed that it is not invalid. However, since this is all a hypothetical discussion anyways. Let's say we agree that the presumptive basis is true. Are you even willing to have that conversation?
-
I didn't say she would wait for the back up prior to acting. If you really are this bad at reading, maybe it doesn't make sense to have a written discussion?
-
You are right, it isn't a practical end game. But then, this whole discussion and thread was not about anything practical to begin with, so the discussion would be termed hypothetical. (this also answers your last snide comment in your post). What is also not a pratical or even remotely probably action, is the American Government doing something that necessitates an armed response from the US population. Which brings us back to the original question, now that once again it is established that the original intent of the 2nd Amendmend is no longer valid, what should be done. I think it is pretty clear I never suggested the US government would or should, just that it has the ability, which you have already agreed to.
-
If that was the case, the young female officer ringing the doorbell would not have made a difference. As a matter of fact, if the assailant answers the phone, she would stop the beating without even having to enter the property. (Plus a no-answer with visible clues there are occupants would be a great time to escalate the call and ask for back up. This would then enhance the chance of stopping this supposed beating sooner)
-
Some would, some would not. Let's say unemployment rates are in the 30 to 40% range. Many would do things they would currently say they would not, just to try and provide for their family.
-
Only if you take the political climate into consideration. Without that, the widespread use of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare would have resulted in a different outcome. Once you have killed the majority of the population, there wouldn't be much fight left. I am assuming you agree the US military has the ability to do so?
-
Wording is there, intent conveyed. If the American population should own guns for a different reason, that should be spelled out in a new amendment. In my opinion that would be the honest and correct way to do it, since in my opinion the original intent is moot.
-
Right, which the cop should have known before she entered the property, since the sign on the gate warned her so. That was the time to call, not after she entered and encountered the animal she was already warned about. Call house --> no answer ----> enter property and deal with any consequences Call House --> answer, but suspicious for whatever reason ---> enter proeprty and deal with any consequences Call House --> answer, owner comes outside and secures dogs---> deal with situation It really isn't that hard.
-
Since this technique is supposedly very effective and should be used to gain intelligence. Was his daughter able to recite her ABC's after?
-
I'm sorry it's not my Amendment to make. I was/am more interested in the discussion around it than the actual wording of the possible amendment. It's a shame the usual suspects tend to go missing at this point. (As a side note, my example had an amendment added, not a revision of the 2nd Amendment)
-
Right, which would have made no difference for whatever was or was not going on inside the house. The dog could have been saved without any added risk.
-
Call them from outside the gate. I am assuming you have heard of the telephone, it replaced pebbles quite some time ago.
-
You can do both. Add an Amendmend that renders the 2nd invalid, yet keeps the wording in the constitution. (As is the case with the items Quade mentiones above)
-
Silly answer. If there was no dog and a woman was getting beaten inside, what was the cop going to do? She should have read the sign, called inside. No answer, enter the property. People don't come out to secure the dogs, enter property. People come out right away, she get's to establish everything is ok and the dog lives. The outcome could have been very different without any added risk to anybody, with just some thought and common sense.
-
Ineffective/=unable In general if a law is not able to achieve its intended objective, then yes it should be done away with.
-
In short the American military does have the ability, but the political will is not existent. Which would be another argument against the necessity of the 2nd Amendmend. In one post you have indicated that the 2nd Amendmend does not allow the US population to stop the government if needed. And, you have indicated such would never be needed anyways. Since you seem to agree that the 2nd Amendmend is no longer needed for its intended purpose, what should be done?
-
And there were ways to win, the price was just deemed to high. Which goes for current situation in Iraq as well. Many posters here have said before to just nuke it into oblivion. You seem to be implying that the outcome in Vietnam and Afghanistan was fixed and no other outcome was possible. The previous posters seems to be implying that the current situation is the only possible situation. That is a pretty weak argument. The questions remains. If the 2nd Amendmend is no longer able achieve what it was intended to do, what should be done with it?
-
Back when the 2nd Amendmend was drafted, this was feasable. However, it is clear that an armed populace would not be able to stop an organized and powerful military. (An example that doesn't go back over 100 years is Iraq, with a population that had a more armed population than the US) So, if the 2nd Amendmend is no longer able to allow for the stated purpose, shouldn't it be removed?