12-12-2009, 01:48 PM
(12-12-2009, 10:14 AM)IMaDick Wrote:(12-12-2009, 09:54 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: Agreed. I guess my point is the case against pitbulls for residential areas seems valid to me and not over the top.
the only problem I see with your position is that erosion of our rights underlies all regulation.
if the government local of federal are allowed to regulate the right to own a certian type of dog then the next thing they will want to regulate what type of weapon we can own, and then they will make us wear seat belts in our own vehicles and then they will try to make us pay them for the right to drive them on PUBLIC roads and make us pay for that right every year, you know once you start letting regulation take place on personal freedoms there will just be no stopping them, those bastards will eventually think that they can tax our pay check 35 or 40% or more force us to buy health insurance ,or pay for the right to own property ,it will just never stop.
I think its best if we don't let them regulate our personal freedoms.::bigsmile::
I understand guarding that slippery slope, I really do. I am normally on the other side of the fence in these debates. But, realistically, you have to draw the line somewhere - that is the case with all of our rights. There is zero erosion of our basic freedoms and rights because there are limits like it being illegal to own a tank, or it being illegal for my neighbor to have a wild tiger living next door.