Skybolts

Sure if that's what you need. Most people can comprehend.

Agreed , minus the shooting a person in the back bit. And yep, most politicians are opportunists.

'Lawcare'...not bad. I don't figure lobbyists are proposing anything, I was being facetious. Of course it costs people to defend themselves in court, and some are willing to pay for insurance. No argument there. ------------------------- It still stands, if you point a firearm at a person in Canada, it is a crime. What's asinine, is all this 'ya but this guy and that guy'. Because the police decide not to charge a person in a specific case does not mean it is not a crime.

Thank you for demonstrating your level of maturity. You appear to be the loudest person in the room. We all know what that means. The law is clear on this. Point a firearm at a person loaded or not, is an offence. Your exceptions to the rule do not change the rule. 87 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded. Marginal note:Punishment (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 87 1995, c. 39, s. 139 Now calm down. Crying whining because you don't like someones statements on the internet is foolish.

It sure does. Something the liberals would do.

You posted an example of a case where there was no evidence the owner pointed a firearm at a person. You can only argue your lawful excuse in court. If you point a firearm at someone and there is proof of this you will be charged. Its pretty clear. Do you agree your insults are childish?

Posted were asinine. How you feel about that is up to you. What else do I not know? Oh... didn't you know, how I didn't know, I can't take it? Not impressive is your lack of knowing what I don't know. Requiring insurance is for each person to decide in this case, and has nothing to do with the laws regarding self defense. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the Liberal gov't makes it mandatory to have self defense insurance, while being illegal to defend oneself.

Section 87 of the Canadian Criminal Code says otherwise. "without lawful excuse", In Canada there is not one. And what does my user name having "been here 5 minutes" have anything to do with this?

Direct to the o'l personal attack. Interesting how you know claim to know things about what I know. And yes this 'areshole' can detect asinine arguments amongst other ridiculous statements.

Nobody said anything about the "right to kill". Prime example of the typical Liberal mind; lacking logic, and reason.

What a great example of how to make completely asinine arguments.

Pointing a firearm intentionally at a person is a criminal offence in Canada. You will be charged. Matters not the situation. Exceptions are made for law enforcement of course, as they are above the law.

Thanks for that. What's your point? He should "assault" the court?

Buisness owners should be allowed to place what requirements they choose on dress codes. If one agrees to it then so be it. Personaly I think people should wear what they choose, unless its over the top tasteless.

Perhaps there may not be a solution. There is always an option.