ExFlyer

You conservatives sure became bitter after your loss. You should seek medical attention and pharmaceutical relief

WTF kind of babble is that???

Nope...it is all about you and your ilk the confux crybaby??? LOL

Meme says it all ...little one LOL

Self denial looks good on you LOL

Meme says it all ...little one LOL

No need to talk...meme says it all LOL Seems you need to talk though

Can't say it any better than the meme. It says everything about you LOL

Pierre Poilievre is trying to drag Canada down the same dangerous road as the U.S. — pushing a “stand on guard” Criminal Code amendment that experts warn would do nothing to protect homeowners but could make Canada less safe. Here’s the reality: Canada already has strong self-defence protections. Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, Canadians can defend themselves or others if they reasonably believe force is being used against them. Courts already weigh context and evidence carefully to protect homeowners acting in good faith. Lawyers warn Poilievre’s plan is a slippery slope. Criminal defence experts say his amendment doesn’t simplify the law — it risks creating a presumption of “reasonableness” that would encourage excessive or reckless violence. Marginalized communities will be hit hardest. Just like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground,” this kind of law disproportionately puts Indigenous, Black, and racialized people at greater risk of being shot, then blamed for their own deaths. Remember Colten Boushie — acquitted killers already slip through Canada’s courts. Imagine the signal Poilievre’s changes would send. It’s U.S.-style politics, not Canadian solutions. The real problems facing Canadians are affordability, housing, healthcare, and climate security. Poilievre ignores them, preferring American culture war imports that divide us instead of making us safer. 📺 Without reporting and legal analysis, Canadians would only hear Poilievre’s spin. Instead, we get the truth: his proposal offers “no real benefit” and could make Canada more dangerous 【https://r.pebmac.ca/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-criminal-code-proposed-amendment-lawyers-1.7621888】. Poilievre wants to defund CBC because it fact-checks him and exposes when he copies failed Republican policies. If CBC is silenced, Canadians are left with Rebel News, Postmedia, and U.S. talking points dressed up as “common sense.”

No need to convince you.... it is clearly evident you are mostly wrong to any thinking person LOL

I am sorry you cannot comprehend. When you grow up maybe higher education can help you.

It was all for your edification and education. I already knew.

HA HA HA. Sure LOL LOL LOL Go for it...refute the laws I have linked. I made no claim...I only linked the actual legislation...refute that LOL LOL LOL You certainly get stoopider and stoopider with every post you make

The swing and a miss is all yours LOL Your links have nothing to do with or change nothing to the laws enacted by PP and his party in September 2013.

Oh yes it was Oh no it did not PP wants to change the law his party enacted. The self defence law portion of C-26 was even proposed by a conservative, (Rob Nicholson) and was passed in the house even by the conservatives. My argument and disagreement is primarily with a number of posters trying to make this a liberal law and should be stricken because it is liberal and, as I see it, not understanding what the law actually is. https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-26/

interpretation 1: the act or the result of interpreting : explanation 2: a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style 3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information Legal interpretation is the rational process of giving meaning to legal texts, such as statutes, constitutions, contracts, and wills. It involves analyzing the context and language of the text to determine its intended normative message and apply it to specific situations. This process can be guided by various theories, such as originalism or focusing on the plain meaning, and employs established rules and principles to avoid absurd or unjust results. None of which anyone on this forum has the ability to do. So, all that is said here off the topic is rectal plucks. So, everything you think you know about legal interpretation makes you look like a clueless nannie

The topic is "Pierre Poilievre proposes changing the law to allow people to defend their home and families without all the present complicated requirements." Fact is he wants to change a law his party instigated because they f'kd up LOL Just because you guys have, as usual, gone so far off topic. It ain't my fault but your inability to stay on topic...as usual

Yes you ar. The topic is "Pierre Poilievre proposes changing the law to allow people to defend their home and families without all the present complicated requirements." I presented the actual Law and also identified it was PP and his party that enacted the law. For PP to try and squirm out by trying to make liberals the party that made this stupid law...is what the issue here is but, none of the PP suckers are willing to admit it is PP that s responsible for the law and how it is being enforced.