CdnFox

Dude - where'd you learn your firearms law. The gun and ammo can be in the safe without further locks. No need to also lock the ammo or bolt. I've practiced, it is 6 seconds for me to go from in front of my gun safe to loaded firearm. (practiced with snap caps ).

It may sound technical but you don't shoot them to kill them - you shoot them to stop the attack. Sure - they die. But that wasn't the goal, the goal was simply to stop them. If they HAPPEN to survive the shot as long as they're on the ground and not attacking you then you're fine with that right? That's the important distinction. IF you intend to kill them then it's not defense, it's murder. If you intend to stop them and prevent them from harming you, and that happens to mean they die as a result, that's not murder it's self defense. The law is odd No no - he is trying to kill you, and you are trying to stop his attack. By shooting him. Till he stops. The intent is important even though your actions may be the same in either case. Legally that's how it goes. The reality is he'll probably die but your goal is NOT to kill, your goal is to make sure you and those under your protection are safe, and if killing him happens to be the best way to achieve that then fine. And this is where many get in trouble. They shoot or injure the home invader, he goes down, then they administer a 'finishing blow' and kill him. Well at that point it's murder - once the attack is stopped and the bad guy can't attack further then you have to stop as well. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of cases where a homeowner shot in self defense and was not arrested. Or was arrested and released immediately while they investigated. Like i say, it depends a lot on the province and other factors. The most common times people get arrested is when they shoot someone running away or give that 'one last bullet to finish him'. You can shoot till the bad guy is not attacking and that's about it.

The liberal voters have been given the serious alternative of NOT voting in favour of corruption and lies. They chose to go with the corruption and lies, Simple fact. So - what does it take for a liberal voter to decide that corruption and lies are unacceptable? The Conservatives certainly know that - just ask the federal PC party. The ndp has proven they won't tolerate it provincially, we've seen them wiped out before. But liberals? They seem to actually REQUIRE it as a prerequiste. Whether it's brown envelopes of money under the table or interfering with the justice system for 'friends' or giving their buddies single source contracts worth millions, they're ALWAYS up for some good ole corruption and theft. What makes that so attractive to the liberals that they just can't say no to that kind of behavior?

Just to add to that - the first nations REQUIRED that the gov't provide education. This was included in the agreements at the time. So the gov't was going to have to provide schooling one way or another. Another thing that is often missed is that it wasn't manditory unit the 20's. People often speak as if they were arresting kids and dragging them away to school in 1890 - but that didn't happen. None of this changes the genuine horrors that did take place nor does it belittle the very real issues. But you are absolutely correct - when looking at what happened it's critical you look at ALL the circumstances that went into the decision making process. People are indeed getting sick of the over vilification and demonization of people in the past and pretending that somehow their sins are our responsibility. The gov't of the day had a legal requirement to provide education, the churches were already doing this and had a structure in place, it wasn't manditory, and they honestly believed that the best thing was for these kids to learn how to be 'proper english people' and then go back to their villages with this knowledge instead of just teaching them to read and write. "if you teach a 'savage' to read all you get is a savage who can read" and all that. Some of their thinking was very wrong but they woudln't have known that.

Well that's not what you said. Sounds like you're changing your tune after someone pointed out your racism. What is it with "the left" these days that they're so blatantly racist like that until you point it out? If you think it's wrong AFTER i pointed it out, don't you think you should have thought it was wrong BEFORE i pointed it out? And your 'new' position is that no no - you just like causing harm and suffering to others. Yeah - that's much better. Yeash, Don't let hatred run your life like that. It's a bad bad thing

You'll see it in court. Punishment by process. ."we can't find him guilty but we can hurt him plenty till hes' found innocent so lets do that'. Yep. Welcome to trudeau's canada. Things got better for many in this respect when the conservatives (and shockingly the ndp) helped pass the "lucky moose" laws for citizens arrest and self defense a ways back - but that doesnt' stop dishonest prosecutors from pursuing their own brand of "justice" against those who would DARE defend themselves. In other provinces this would never have gone to court.

Why be clear? Because clarity is good Demand for housing isn't the problem. There SHOULD be demand for housing. Demand for housing is a good thing. Trades haven't been the problem for the most part. In the last two years there's been an issue with trades as many people have taken early retirement during covid and now we're short people. But that's a pretty easy fix. The biggest parts of the problem lay elsewhere. This goes back at least a decade and probably closer to two. It IS fair to say that we shouldn't be radically increasing immigraiton till we address this, but the underlying problem here isn't immigration. That is by far and away the biggest problem. And you're stratching the surface. Our tax policies mean that the developer is severely punished for finishing a home early or before it's sold, so they will NEVER build ahead of demand and will ALWAYS lag. How they borrow money to do projects is a little wonky too. There's a number of other problems. Regulation and taxation is probably the biggest problem and barrier we have. Not unless someone does something significant. And there's a good chance that won't happen. Even if it does - it will take decades for the ship to right itself. Its' been estimated that we are over 1 million homes behind - that means we have to increase production to what it should be and THEN build another million homes to completely resolve the issue on top of that. Obviously if we at least improve production significantly we can stop the bleed, or make it slightly better, that would at least be something. But it won't happen under trudeau.

Sadly no, It's already pretty repressed. The number of airbnb units is actually a pretty small percent of the units in total and is more often a basement suite or the like which wouldn't necessarily go on the 'regular' rental market. For example there's only about 250 - 350 in vancouver and the city is going after many of them and as i mentioned not all of them would be suitable for permanent rental. The vast majority of stratas (if not all) don't allow it and are aggressive about policing it, and there's now HUGE fines for people who do it. It would help a very small amount, but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem. Historically no. It's recognized that doing this impacts the people around the unit significantly in a number of ways. Conservatives would probably like to see it not unreasonably restricted - in other words allowed where appropriate - but honestly this is the least of the 'gov't interference' in people's properties (especially strata) in the last few years.

I know, the comment was intended entirely for amusement purposes

At the risk of being labeled a shit disturber..... you realize that's anecdotal right? (i'm so sorry - i couldn't help it. Honest i tried. I'll go sit in my corner now..... )

Justin Trudeau would like a word with you....

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-bc-ndp-housing-plan-five-years-later The NDP played with a few ideas and then gave up - but at the end of the day they ignored the only thing that matters. THE PROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED UNLESS WE BUILD A LOT MORE HOMES. Every single effort that ISN'T building more new homes at a much accelerated pace than we have been is pointless. If you have 90 homes, and 100 people who want homes, then prices will go through the roof until the 10 percent at the bottom can't afford it and are completely cut off. And that's true of purchase AND rental. And that's precisely what we're seeing, the lower half is getting completely cut out of the purchase market and is now being squeezed hard in the rental.

So you consider spreading division and racial hatred a worth while goal?

Well yes, that too

They have slipped from 'reporting' and 'news' sources to 'infotainment' and 'opinion'.

Well that's another lie isn't it. You have zero evidence in the slightest that they wrote the article just to 'generate outrage'. That's just an excuse for you to pretend that there's a reason you shouldn't care about it. But the fact is you simply don't want to have to defend human rights if they're not being used for something you approve of. So it's this "gosh i just can't work up the outrage" routine, So the next time you "claim" to consider someone's rights to be important, expect to be called on your hypocrisy.

Well first off - i see we're changing the channel again Fair enough. Secondly that's a little like saying people get shot all the time, i can't generate outrage. Fair enough but that doesn't change the fact that people getting shot all the time is a really bad thing from an objective point of view Or saying racism happens all the time, i can't work up the outrage. etc etc And fair enough. If you're outraged at everything that's outrageous you're going to spend your entire life outraged and who wants that. But - you should care enough to agree it's a bad thing and should be stopped even if you're not 'outraged'. After all - you can hardly expect anyone to give a damn about the rights you care about if you don't care about others' rights. Right?

Yes always. If he dies while you're trying to stop him then you're justified, If you're TRYING to kill him (or say that you were) then that's a whole different matter. Sadly it depends a lot on the province. BC or Alberta? Probably not. Ontario? Probably. Of course it depends slightly on the details but if someone bursts into your home unlawfully you are justified to use any force to stop them even if that results in their death.

Who can blame him for loving the idea of it. If we could pull it off in an affordable and practical manner it would solve all KINDS of problems. And it's SOOO close, we've come so far since the first prius rolled off the line around 2000. And for sure for some individuals it's great right now, but unless something changes drastically we'll never be able to hit a 12 year mass adoption strategy. Well they're not even frikkin' trying, and thats what pisses me off. Justin just announces this date without any thought or plan or anything. It reminds me of that "the office" episode where Michael walks out and says "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" and the staff says 'you cant just go bankrupt like that' and he says "Yes i can i just declared it!!" It's just not how it works. And i feel there's a lot we could be doing to actually move closer to that next generation solution LIKE making buildings be designed at least to accomodate the wiring . But we don't.

You were lying entirely. I guess you think telling the truth is retarded. Which actually explains a lot

Look who's moving the goalposts now Why don't you address what's being said right now instead? Oh that's right - you can't. Because you were wrong. Deflect deflect deflect - far better than facing the truth in your books it would seem. Anyway it would seem that i've shown two things - the "heresy" police are out there in full force these days punishing people for their badspeak. and you're a dishonest player as soon as you discover you're in the wrong

Tell me you don't understand law without telling me Full stop You cited an irrelevant case and tried to draw a conclusion from it. That case made a specific argument that we have a right to firearms derrived from british common law. The judge said we have no such right. in 2000 the court ruled that there ARE in fact civil and property rights to own firearms both personally and as part of the constitutional provision of power which gives the provinces the right over property . however the federal gov't had the right to put reasonable restrictions on it in the interest of public safety - as i said previously: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html So there you go. Swing and a miss

In ontario that is usually the case. Not so in other provinces. there are many many examples where people used firearms to defend themselves and no charges were laid. Not exactly. His being unarmed is irrelevant. if he's in your home and hes' not listening to commands the courts have recognized you must assume he's capable of anything and you're justified in stopping him. Now - if you say He came at me and i decided to kill him, then you go to jail. If you say 'he came at me and i shot him to stop the attack, then you're innocent. Inside the home there is absolutely no requirement to use 'minimal' force or the like. But you can't deliberately intend to kill - if however the person happens to die while you're stopping them then that's fine.

Sorry but we both know that's bullshit. You're trying to deflect from the fact that someone is being persecuted for exactly the thing i suggested is happening. Here's a person who dared to speak against the 'dogma' of the day, no hatred no misinformation, just a simple truth. And for his heresy against the left wing tribal echo chamber he was summarily punished and excommunicated. I get why you wanted to try to change the channel and pretend it was 'goal post moving'. A common if someone deceitful tactic. But its pretty obvious that this is a truth in canada today - we still have people being punished for 'heresy' and speaking out against the quasi-religious beliefs of the church of the left. And that's a problem.

the funny thing is it wasn't a criticism. He wasn't offering it as a comment on or a criticism of anything, not the native position or the gov'ts. He just simply stated an absolutely accurate fact. The vast vast vast majority of the children died from tuberculosis and (to a much lesser degree) spanish influenza. Thats how most of the children died. And this is the result. For stating a simple fact without judgement he's been fired. Because of the quazi religious nature of left wing dogma these days - even speaking a simple truth that doesn't support the approved narrative is punishable, even if its' not a criticism.