Venandi

Did you mean Venanduh or are you drinking Listerine on the deck of a "roofed platform along the outside of your hut"? Your condom obsession probably means you're still upset about the breakup with Herb... so, here's a limerick to lick until you two makeup. Dearest Fly-hole in the weeds, Of caustic words and evil deeds, Your reputation far exceeds, Your lack of knowledge, sense and deeds.

It used to be a cat... ExFlyer now calls it "ExPet". It seems his wife has identified the problem though.

Yes, your presence here seems to be creating converts.... stay the course, you're winning. I'm starting to think you work for the conservative party. I'd hire you.

Thanks... Even though I haven't looked into it much I tend to agree. Might be a mistake to rush headlong into such things when an incremental approach would be more manageable. We didn't do that with the infrastructure to support mass immigration. We certainly have the land mass to support it but still, big things take time, effort and money. I would define "mass" in this context as an ill advised action that exceeded the capabilities of the infrastructure required to support it; something that was (or should have been) reasonably apparent prior to embarking on the effort. I sometimes think of my grandfather's experience, he went from horse drawn field artillery pieces in WW1 to supersonic flight, men on the moon, and medical breakthroughs he never could have imagined as a young man. It was incremental though... even though it appeared to happen fast it was 93 years in the making. Cheers.

Do you think green power grid infrastructure (in a continental or even global context) is capable of supporting it all? Any concerns about supply lines and earth metals? Germany didn't fair too well with their green power experiment. I'm wondering if we would be substituting one problem for another.

Not only that.... other than drunk college aged jocks, most people who do security gigs for fun (as opposed to the high pay) will likely tell you that boomers, especially females of the species, are the absolute worst to deal with. Personally though, I actually enjoy dealing with passive aggressive types, personality flaw perhaps but they always brighten my day. So many times I've seen their adult daughters (who are sweet as pie usually) sink into the passenger seat embarrassed by their mother's conduct. I think you're right, there is a generational difference at play here but I don't know how that (in isolation) translates into voting preferences. My initial inclination based on random observation is to agree though... how's that for a wildly anecdotal opinion?

I can't help but wonder what we all would think if the entire situation was stood completely on its head... by that I mean if internal combustion engines were a recent invention. No more battery recycling woes, no rare earth metal deals with potentially hostile trading partners and no rolling blackouts due to an aging power grid. Would it be heralded as cheap, light weight, more environmentally friendly, lest wasteful etc? Not a rhetorical question BTW... I have no idea. We haven't seen the real world effects of 100% EV ownership to know for sure but I suspect it isn't the panacea some believe it to be.

I noticed that his picture and name were released immediately... curious eh? I cringe every time I see a gun violence headline lest it be a registered owner and legally acquired gun... the name and all other information is released immediately when that happens as well. Haven't seen any of that a while though... you'd think people would take note of it prior to demanding the government spend 2 billion fixing a problem you almost never hear about.

Here's another one: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/markham-home-invasion-kidnapping?itm_source=top-news Some may rightly argue that the statistical likelihood of this happening to any particular individual is low but it's a pretty emotional issue... violent attacks in the one place most people feel (and should expect to feel) safe tends to resonate across the board. I'm starting to wonder if otherwise law abiding people will begin arming themselves illegally out of fear and sense of "being left to fend for themselves." Not all response times are quick in all areas and that sense of fear, frustration, and abandonment can cause people to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't... if so, it's likely to make the overall situation worse as opposed to better. It's not unreasonable to suspect that the average father/husband would be willing to do to more to protect his family in his own home than he likely would in other areas of everyday life. I'm thinking this should be nipped in the bud in a very public way; full disclosure on day one of any event, absolutely zero instances of bail for home invasions, and heavy sentences expedited in quick time through the courts... and I mean quick time, night court if required. Were I a politician with the power to effect change, I would want this grabbed by the throat and shaken vigorously in a very public and open manner. If I were a liberal politician I'd be even more motivated in order for my gun grab efforts not to be seen for the ridiculous sham and waste of money that they are. Two billion dollars spent to solve a non-existent problem whilst a real one goes poorly managed in a highly publicized manner wouldn't be something I wouldn't want to carry into the next election.

Did you think you were the only one who had the right to do that?

If only your father had taken up the hobby...

Instead of just bending facts, you and your colleagues excel at turning them into balloon animals. Is this you?

It's kind of important though... gonna make em guess eh?

I noticed you left out the caveat... accidental omission?

Are you the attractive young lady with hairy legs and GPS ankle bracelet in the picture? PM from Herb coming at ya....

And he isn't the only one... See what I mean?

He's doing that on purpose and nothing you say will change it. Speaking personally, the law as written isn't a big problem for me, if you have a passing familiarity with it you can navigate it in a reasonable manner.... and reasonableness is the gold standard in such things. What people are deliberately failing to acknowledge is the aftermath (in terms of charges) for average folks who inadvertently fall into "traps for the unwary" on (what is perhaps) one of the worst encounters of their lives. In fairness, that's to be expected because most people have never considered such things in a scenario driven manner before they're confronted with it for the first time. Put In a military context, simply reading the existing rules of engagement (ROEs) to your crew isn't as helpful as scenario driven discussions, pop quizzes, and rehearsals. The fact that anything you use as a weapon is subsequently considered a weapon bugs me a bit (that might just be me) but... depending on what you say after the fact it can cause you grief. The soup can and bear spray scenario I mentioned earlier are examples. Some may remember the plight of the "Spiceman" in Toronto years ago. He was a restaurant owner who used a handful of asian spices as a "weapon" against a trespasser. As I recall, he got the whole arrest without a warrant thing wrong because he didn't actually observe an indictable offence and thus wasn't protected by the use of reasonable force caveats contained in the law. In any case, my point is that deliberately carrying "asian spices" for defensive purposes is not the same as having them in your possession (for a legitimate reason) during the course of a confrontation. If we go back to the soup can thing, you are going to be asked why you were carrying it... "it's my lunch" will be viewed differently under the law than "I need something to defend myself from thugs on the bus." Elicitation techniques (in the right hands) are pretty compelling you may find yourself saying things that bite you. Even with my limited exposure to such techniques, I bet I could steer the "pleasant conversation" in either direction, you will likely be charged if you're carrying it for defensive purposes and used it to defend yourself. Here's another example: In the bear spray shed robbery I used earlier, the police arrive and interview you and your wife separately. There was no firearm used in the encounter but they know you have them in the house. They ask your wife if there are guns in the house (they already know the answer) then they ask if she has an R/PAL (they know the answer to that too). When she says no, the cop responds with something to the effect of, "can you get the key for me I need to look inside?" She complies. Two things just happened here... you have agreed to a voluntary search and you have violated the safe storage rules by virtue of her knowing where the key is (she doesn't have an R/PAL). In the safe they find a .22 semiautomatic rifle you've had since childhood, 3 days ago it got added to the list of prohibited weapons.... your next offence is not having it double locked, with a trigger lock even though it was in a locked safe to start with. There's two serious charges here and we're just getting started and the guns had nothing what so ever to do with the event. Now, how many gun owners track this stuff? How many wives know where the key is or what the combonation is. She might even use the little shelf in it occasionally to store cash from work. LOL, after that (and for the next year) she'll have a lot more room for those night deposits though. The video I posted has a proposed solution I now think has some merit. He proposes that in cases of homeowner self defence, where charges are laid by the Crown, that an evidentiary hearing in front of a judge is required post haste to validate the Crown's contention that there is a reasonable expectation of a conviction. He also suggests that the threshold for prosecution be significantly higher than that which now exists... essentially that the level of violence used by the homeowner in defending himself needs to be egregious and wildly out of proportion to what a reasonable person would do. Since we're considering deliberate, dynamic breaches by multiple assailants for the purpose of robbing the home owners, assuming that the bad guys are armed and intend you harm is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. The brother-in-law and lawnmower scenario is hardly worth responding to IMO... you either get this at a reasonable level or you don't. All IMO of course.....

Here's an opinion on the "reasonableness aspect" of the law and a proposal to make the concept of "reasonableness" more homeowner friendly. Video posted with the intent of it being food for thought as opposed to something I'm personally advocating for or against.

Indeed, or in Flybaby's case, brain surgery with a mirror, flashlight and felling axe. This entire thread is absolutely breathtaking, easy to see how the whole covid thing was so easily implemented.

I'm very aware of the fact that you can represent yourself in court... but it's a bad idea . Anyone who represents themselves has a fool for a client. This is almost comical, you (like most of us) have no idea how much you don't know in a situation like this... and you're advocating for defending yourself against a prosecutor who actually does know stuff. I sincerely hope no one on the fence listens to a word of your nonsense. Down vote that fool...

I stand in awe... PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: please be advised that the stupidity on display here can ruin your day, If you're on the fence, please ignore nonsense partisan posts, buy the book or do your own research. Not only do you need a lawyer, you need that lawyer before giving a statement on fight night IMO. As I recall, you can't have them present in an interrogation but you can consult with one prior to it. It would be a mistake to think you are simply having a pleasant conversation with the responding officers. Many people have firearm legal insurance (a group retainer sort of thing) that allows 24/7 access by phone. Your milage may vary but I would talk to them before giving any statement. I would also want to avoid giving one while I was shaken (or perhaps injured) and in a state of shock.

Trump could not have achieved a second term without the stratospheric buffoonery of Democrats.... and on multiple fronts simultaneously. Some folks (even right here on the forum) have repeatedly warned about the predictable backlash that would occur if total madness was allowed to breed and prosper unchecked by reality and common sense.

Must have missed the POOF sound when that happened. Anyone reviewing your posting history would expect the low frequency vibrations to be felt on the east coast.

These are going to increase in frequency IMO because it makes good sense for bad guys to do it this way, meaning via targeted dynamic entries. CQB breaching, clearing and weapon retention techniques are actually on YOUTUBE. I would argue that they never should have been allowed to be.... but that's just me. Since this has clearly become a ridiculously partisan issue, I see no profit in pursuing the matter further. Cheers.

This isn't about liberals and conservatives... it's about average people running afoul of laws they didn't know existed on the worst day of their lives. There are traps for the unwary that I would argue put the home owner at a distinct disadvantage simply because they haven't thought it all through. Ohhhhh...It does matter, what you use, how you use it and the intent behind its use most definitely does. Frankly, I don't care who does it or what their motivations are, it needs to be addressed. This particular event is nothing more than the catalyst for addressing an issue that needs addressing regardless of what the circumstances or outcome end up being. Depending on what you say after the fact, and your intent in carrying it, that soup can will be deemed a defensive weapon that you had no legal right to carry for the purpose you carried it. Defensive canes are an interesting exception I think, your reason for carrying it is between you and you Doctor and your medical history is not something you are compelled to explain to a responding officer. I don't know that he is... and if he is I don't even care. I would applaud JT if he had done the same thing.