Pierre Poilievre proposes changing the law to allow people to defend their home and families without all the present complicated requirements.

[User]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Snake oil PP finds headlines that irk people and then proposes a law about it to try to show he'd do something about it. He doesn't give 2 hoots if the law makes sense or not, it's all just for theater.  Canadians aren't this stupid to fall for this huckster nonsense

Well, the point here is that something appears to have happened that should rightly irk people. Why shouldn't we support doing something to right a wrong?

 

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Snake oil PP finds headlines that irk people and then proposes a law about it to try to show he'd do something about it. He doesn't give 2 hoots if the law makes sense or not, it's all just for theater.  Canadians aren't this stupid to fall for this huckster nonsense

Bitter liberal sees CPC actually addressing  issues that matter to canadians that they've ignored for years and is pissed that it might actually be popular, spouts nonsense 

Vast majority of people in Canada support the idea that if you break into someone's home and they do you harm as a result that person shouldn't face charges except in very extreme circumstances.

The liberals have had 10 years to change this and if anything all they've done is make it worse with laws that make it easier for people to be on parole

Your entirely on the wrong side of this

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Well, the point here is that something appears to have happened that should rightly irk people. Why shouldn't we support doing something to right a wrong?

 

Because that would mean supporting a conservatives and no matter how good an idea they've got we must not do that until we can steal the idea from them at the next election!!!!  

Unfortunately the left shares that trait in Canada with the left in America. They are driven by hatred and bigotry and have no interest in what's best for Canada in the slightest

Currently our law says that you can defend yourself against an attack In your home provided what you do is "reasonable". It is 100% entirely fair to suggest that the burden of proof for what is reasonable and what isn't should be with the court and not on the v

ictim. In other words, before you can take someone to court and ruin their lives you have to be able to demonstrate that what they did was entirely unreasonable, and put a definition on reasonableness that accounts for the fact that the person involved may have been woken up and found intruders in their home at 3 in the morning and not exactly had time to sit down and do a chat GPT search as to what constitutes reasonableness under Canadian law

But liberals like this guy always freak out at the thought of people being responsible for their own safety. 

Edited September 4, 2025 by CdnFox

[ExFlyer]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Thank you for demonstrating that if you don't like the answer to a question you yourself asked you'll cry and pout. 

And i notice you haven't been able to offer a rebuttal to any of the points made,  

You appear to be the dumbest person in the room.  We all know what that means. 

 

The lae does not say that ,

WITHOUT... LAWFUL.... EXCUSE.

That's the part you always ignore.  NO MATTER WHAT IT'S A CRIME!!!! LETS LOOK AT THE LAW.!!!!!!  (law says NOT a crime if you have a lawful excuse). 

LOLOL 

Kid, your own post shows you're wrong   There are several reasons you can point a gun at people. it CAN be an offense but no, if you're lawfully defending yourself or property it is NOT an offense,  I gave you examples from the real world and you still don't get it. 

Your being stupid isn't my fault. 

I see your mirror is talking to you    With that kind of projection  you should work for a movie theatre

So you found someone on the internet you agree with that has no idea what they're talking about and we should listen because.....   why?

Honestly it's really no better than when you used to post actual ass porn. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh noes!!! He's so emotionally damaged this  morning he can't even talk, he has to use pictures  LOLOL!!!

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh noes!!! He's so emotionally damaged this  morning he can't even talk, he has to use pictures  LOLOL!!!

No need to talk...meme says it all LOL

Seems you need to talk though

 

[I am Groot]

On 9/2/2025 at 1:56 PM, herbie said:

And a Judge and jury is the proper form of interpretation, not Joe Blow or some politician begging for votes.

If they ever approve blowing away some guy for trying to carry off your TV that will set a precedent. Same as when they actually jail someone over self defence that does too.

It would be nice if they actually jailed people for carrying off your TV.

[I am Groot]

59 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Snake oil PP finds headlines that irk people and then proposes a law about it to try to show he'd do something about it. He doesn't give 2 hoots if the law makes sense or not, it's all just for theater.  Canadians aren't this stupid to fall for this huckster nonsense

So you find nothing wrong with someone being charged for fighting off an armed intruder in his home?

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No need to talk...meme says it all LOL

 

 

I know it's hard for you to talk when you're crying like that  

It's easy for me to talk, i'm not crying    

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I know it's hard for you to talk when you're crying like that  

It's easy for me to talk, i'm not crying    

Self denial looks good on you LOL

[Venandi]

40 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No need to talk...meme says it all LOL

Seems you need to talk though

 

Are you the attractive young lady with hairy legs and GPS ankle bracelet in the  picture? 

PM from Herb coming at ya....

Edited September 4, 2025 by Venandi

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Snake oil PP finds headlines that irk people and then proposes a law about it to try to show he'd do something about it. He doesn't give 2 hoots if the law makes sense or not, it's all just for theater.  Canadians aren't this stupid to fall for this huckster nonsense

When did you become a mind reader?  LOL.  You really need to do something about your Poilievre derangement syndrome.  

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Self denial looks good on you LOL

 

Umm... not sure you know what "self denial" is   LOLOL!!!   That's where you deny yourself self gratification or things you want. 

Like, if you were to deny yourself eating a cookie because you're really really fat  already   That'd be self denial  

I'm completely not surprised you don't know what self denial is    Fatty  

[Moonlight Graham]

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

So you find nothing wrong with someone being charged for fighting off an armed intruder in his home?

There should be huge leeway for someone causing violence against someone who breaks into your home.  Outside of torture or some other odd extreme cruelty i think any violence is fair game.  If you're shot leaving the property who cares.  Police would have done the same thing trying to stop them in an arrest if the suspect ran.

Maybe PPs law is even correct here who knows, I just think he's an opportunist doing theater here. 

[Moonlight Graham]

35 minutes ago, Shady said:

When did you become a mind reader?  LOL.  You really need to do something about your Poilievre derangement syndrome.  

Politicians like PP and Trudeau reap what they sow.

[Skybolts]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

How, with legislation? Maybe something like ICBC or Healthcare with premiums to pay for it. Call it Lawcare.

You figure lobbyists from Big Law and Big Insurance are proposing to Liberals they do this? I wouldn't put it past them to listen I suppose.

'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. 

[Venandi]

16 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

It still stands, if you point a firearm at a person in Canada, it is a crime.

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

[Skybolts]

 

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There should be huge leeway for someone causing violence against someone who breaks into your home.  Outside of torture or some other odd extreme cruelty i think any violence is fair game.  If you're shot leaving the property who cares.  Police would have done the same thing trying to stop them in an arrest if the suspect ran.

Maybe PPs law is even correct here who knows, I just think he's an opportunist doing theater here. 

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

[Skybolts]

5 minutes ago, Venandi said:

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

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

[Venandi]

6 minutes ago, Skybolts said:

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

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

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There should be huge leeway for someone causing violence against someone who breaks into your home.  Outside of torture or some other odd extreme cruelty i think any violence is fair game.  If you're shot leaving the property who cares.  Police would have done the same thing trying to stop them in an arrest if the suspect ran.

Maybe PPs law is even correct here who knows, I just think he's an opportunist doing theater here. 

I thought that was what politics was all about theater...

[ExFlyer]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Are you the attractive young lady with hairy legs and GPS ankle bracelet in the  picture? 

PM from Herb coming at ya....

 

Edited September 4, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

That's a question that can only be answered by the flybaby.

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

That's a question that can only be answered by the flybaby.

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

Edited September 4, 2025 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Umm... not sure you know what "self denial" is   LOLOL!!!   That's where you deny yourself self gratification or things you want. 

Like, if you were to deny yourself eating a cookie because you're really really fat  already   That'd be self denial  

I'm completely not surprised you don't know what self denial is    Fatty  

WTF kind of babble is that???