(12-10-2009, 10:48 PM)SyberBitch Wrote: I've said this already, but it makes me sad that I'm actually starting to change camps on the 'dangerous breeds' issue. It's not, to my mind, that the dogs themselves are actually any more 'vicious' than any other breed, it's the problem that when the dogs ARE mishandled and DO become vicious, they're simply far more dangerous than other breeds. I would hate to see noble breeds banned into extinction, but I predict it will eventually happen.
I doubt it. This'll get right up there with taking away our guns. Why hasn't it been done yet? Because the government knows that if they went through with it all those Tennessee hicks in the hills would come out and mow them down. What should happen instead is that assholes who mistreat their dogs go to the chair. But, sadly, that wont happen either. :(
(12-11-2009, 10:37 AM)D Wrote: (12-10-2009, 10:48 PM)SyberBitch Wrote: I've said this already, but it makes me sad that I'm actually starting to change camps on the 'dangerous breeds' issue. It's not, to my mind, that the dogs themselves are actually any more 'vicious' than any other breed, it's the problem that when the dogs ARE mishandled and DO become vicious, they're simply far more dangerous than other breeds. I would hate to see noble breeds banned into extinction, but I predict it will eventually happen.
I doubt it. This'll get right up there with taking away our guns. Why hasn't it been done yet? Because the government knows that if they went through with it all those Tennessee hicks in the hills would come out and mow them down. What should happen instead is that assholes who mistreat their dogs go to the chair. But, sadly, that wont happen either. :(
I don't know, D. There are already bans on certain breeds in many areas and in others, you can't insure your home if you own certain breeds (or it's prohibitively expensive). I've had people refuse to rent to me, even though they allowed dogs, because one of the dogs was half German Shepherd.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
I think it's reasonable for the law to demand that animals with exceptionally powerful bites that are exceptionally difficult to remove from the heads of children be kept away from family neighborhoods.
And those kinds of thoughts are why we're slowly losing out Freedom day by day. I'm not saying the dogs & guns bans wont happen in the future. Once we're sufficiently cowed to allow it. Like those faggoty Brits are now. But it isn't going to be within the next few years.
And banning a certain breed of dogs because they have a powerful bite is akin to banning all people of African American decent because so many of them are violent dangerous criminals. Wow. What an idea. All this nonsense is making me sick. And worse are those wimps who would let our government take away our rights.
(12-11-2009, 02:25 PM)D Wrote: And those kinds of thoughts are why we're slowly losing out Freedom day by day. I'm not saying the dogs & guns bans wont happen in the future. Once we're sufficiently cowed to allow it. Like those faggoty Brits are now. But it isn't going to be within the next few years.
And banning a certain breed of dogs because they have a powerful bite is akin to banning all people of African American decent because so many of them are violent dangerous criminals. Wow. What an idea. All this nonsense is making me sick. And worse are those wimps who would let our government take away our rights.
I'm seeing the breed issue as very similar to the types of weapons that are now banned in most places (I thought machine guns were illegal, but one of our local weapon shops sells them, so I guess not?) anyway, it makes sense to me. There are plenty of different types of guns out there that people can buy, which are totally sufficient to hunt with or protect their homes, or even for personal protection. No one NEEDS a machine gun unless they're going to war. The same with certain breeds of dog.
The sad fact is, people are not SMART enough to live without government control. If people were smart and responsible, they could be trusted to own any type of weapon they might want. If people were smart and responsible, we wouldn't NEED to have laws in place to TELL people how to behave. Since that isn't the case, and since that problem is only getting worse over time, we do need laws and restrictions to keep idiots from letting their irresponsibility destroy the lives of everyone else.
It would be great if there were a way to only put restrictions on the people who needed them, but I can't see that as being a possible scenario.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
(12-11-2009, 02:25 PM)D Wrote: And banning a certain breed of dogs because they have a powerful bite is akin to banning all people of African American decent because so many of them are violent dangerous criminals.
No it's not, which is why you don't cry about all the other exceptionally dangerous animals not allowed in family neighborhoods under current law.
Posts: 15,939
Threads: 392
Joined: Jun 2008
(12-11-2009, 02:37 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: (12-11-2009, 02:25 PM)D Wrote: And banning a certain breed of dogs because they have a powerful bite is akin to banning all people of African American decent because so many of them are violent dangerous criminals.
No it's not, which is why you don't cry about all the other exceptionally dangerous animals not allowed in family neighborhoods under current law.
Exactly.
The reason why I don't want pit bulls on the loose biting childrens faces off is for the same reason I don't want lions and tigers on the loose biting childrens faces off.
Not enough people have common sense to allow complete and utter freedom. If the law allowed there are people out there who would quite happily walk up and down the streets with a hyena on a leash carrying a rocket launcher.
We need to punish the French, ignore the Germans and forgive the Russians - Condoleezza Rice.
I actually have no problem with people having lions or tigers as pets. The problem isn't that they have these pets, it is that the pets aren't properly cared for... including being chained or kenneled as appropriate. Being ignorant and saying people can't have them AT all is just wrong, dumb, and injust. Limits for safety are ok, but total removal is not.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
D, it's not OK for my neighbor to have lions or tigers as pets, no matter how fucking good he is at raising them BECAUSE they can inflict way too much damage - i.e. are especially good at inflicting injury or death and especially hard to get off a victim. That is why you do NOT cry about those laws.
The law banning these animals from residential areas is appropriate and no threat to freedom, and have been around for a long, long, long time traced back to some places in the original colonies, I believe.
Next.
(12-11-2009, 03:10 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: D, it's not OK for my neighbor to have lions or tigers as pets, no matter how fucking good he is at raising them BECAUSE they can inflict way too much damage - i.e. are especially good at inflicting injury or death and especially hard to get off a victim. That is why you do NOT cry about those laws.
The law banning these animals from residential areas is appropriate and no threat to freedom, and have been around for a long, long, long time traced back to some places in the original colonies, I believe.
Next.
And you obviously need to learn to read asswipe. I said I don't have a problem with it. If they're properly harnessed and can't escape, then why should I worry? Ignorant moron. Not to mention I don't live in a residential area either jackass.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
If you are OK with people having lions and tigers as pets in residential neighborhoods with families and kids you are a supreme moron.
(12-11-2009, 03:05 PM)D Wrote: I actually have no problem with people having lions or tigers as pets. The problem isn't that they have these pets, it is that the pets aren't properly cared for... including being chained or kenneled as appropriate. Being ignorant and saying people can't have them AT all is just wrong, dumb, and injust. Limits for safety are ok, but total removal is not.
Come on, D. It's not 'unjust'.  :
The problem is, it's being demonstrated over and over that people are simply NOT responsible enough to safely own dangerous animals.
It's not illegal to own lions and tigers, people do it. It's 'regulated' and guess what? The animals still end up being abused in many cases, because the people end up unable to handle the animals - who turn vicious because they are mishandled. The animals often end up having to be put down (or best case scenario - sent to a zoo).
My point is, that even with regulations and special permits required and such, people still get them and it still ends up going badly.
(12-11-2009, 03:20 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: If you are OK with people having lions and tigers as pets in residential neighborhoods with families and kids you are a supreme moron.
God you're being a thick fucker tonight, I said I don't LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA
I could give a fuck less about residential areas in general. The rules there are, and SHOULD be, different. God damn, get a clue asswipe.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
(12-11-2009, 05:56 PM)D Wrote: (12-11-2009, 03:20 PM)Middle Finger Wrote: If you are OK with people having lions and tigers as pets in residential neighborhoods with families and kids you are a supreme moron.
God you're being a thick fucker tonight, I said I don't LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA
I could give a fuck less about residential areas in general. The rules there are, and SHOULD be, different. God damn, get a clue asswipe.
Well you reacted negatively toward our comments - comments we obviously made about pitbulls in residential areas, suggesting they are a bit much around kids due to their exceptionally powerful bite and difficulty of removal off the victim.
No Frank. I reacted negatively to the suggestions that they be completely banned/exterminated.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
Well, your post #24 came right after my post #23 and I was specifically talking about families and neighborhoods.
It doesn't really matter. As OP's story indicates, if they are banned, then they'll just be kept illegally. Just like the so called "Gun Control" crap. Does it help? Not a fucking bit. The criminals get their hands on automatic weapons anyways. The "law" has failed.
And on that Syber, you're wrong. I'm going to assume you're talking about something like an M-16 or an Uzi when you say "machine gun" that you've seen in local stores or what not.
1) An M-16 is an Automatic Rifle, not a Machine Gun. An M-60 would be an example of a Machine gun.
2) ANY Gun is legal, as long as it has had the capability for automatic and burst fire removed. So a semi-automatic only version of an M-16 is perfectly legal.
3) As I stated above, Gun Control doesn't work, the criminals get their hands on automatic weapons anyways.
4) You can buy a "legal" semi-automatic M-16 and convert it back to full automatic piece of cake. I wouldn't though, but would add 3-round burst capability back to it.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
I am pro-rights and fully support the Second Amendment. I don't blame or demonize objects like OP does for people killing each other and I do not believe in watering down rights because some people abuse or misuse them. That is not vigilantly guarding our rights and freedoms. However, unlike guns, animals can and do get up on their own to go hurt people. The types that are either hard to control or are especially dangerous, like tigers, are not appropriate for residential areas as you know. It is under that umbrella that pitbulls may fall due to their exceptionally powerful bite and difficulty to get off their victim. They can and do escape yards and houses and go hurt and kill kids, for whatever reason. That is my point. I know any dog can do that but like I said, you have to draw a line somewhere ... just like we do right now with so many animals.
I think things like this need to be left up to each residential area. As in the people governing themselves through their local township board or whatever.
Posts: 14,114
Threads: 439
Joined: May 2008
Agreed. I guess my point is the case against pitbulls for residential areas seems valid to me and not over the top.
|
