ExFlyer

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.

It was all about you but now. shady and user pop in so...this is for them too LOL

Love it when you and your buddies have nothing of value and just complain about me down voting you LOL Guess they are LOSERS too, just like you LOL

It does prove something. It proves what the law is and not the nonsensical debate going on. Knowing what you are debating or talking about supposedly makes you smarter.

Yet it was PP and his gang that made that exact law... LOL

Here is the actual law. It is very clear and no hysterics or political BS associated with it. "34.(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; No change from old law." https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html Case law https://www.dunnandassociates.ca/news/you-have-the-right-to-self-defence-within-limits/ Ontario law https://www.kruselaw.ca/video/home-invasion-self-defence-in-canada/

OK. LOSER

OK LOSER Love it when you and your buddies have nothing of value and just complain about me down voting you LOL Guess they are LOSERS too, just like you LOL

OK LOSER Love it when you and your buddies have nothing of value and just complain about me down voting you LOL Guess they are LOSERS too, just like you LOL

I am not surprised such a stoopid statement comes from you. It is expected LOL

OK. LOSER

I am not surprised such a stoopid statement comes from you. It is expected LOL

The trial and topic is defending yourself in your home when faced with home invasion. Chances are the prosecutor will not even proceed. I am sorry you feel I am not serious. I thought the discussion was civil but it is too bad you cannot recognize that and cannot accept a different opinion. Prove that a lawyer is required.... go ahead. Prove it. I am actually surprised that you are not aware to know you can represent yourself , especially in a case where chances of it actually going to trial are minimal at best.

OK LOSER

OK. LOSER

I tried to have a decent conversation with you but... No, you do not need a lawyer. "The court will want to know if you are hiring a lawyer or representing yourself" "Canada has a legal aid system that provides access to justice for economically disadvantaged persons who cannot afford a lawyer, though the delivery is managed provincially and territorially."

OK LOSER