Posted on 11/22/2008 5:19:40 PM PST by Chet 99
I have an 11 yo female Shih Tzu. She’s small for her breed. My adult female pit bull is terrified of her. She won’t go near her unless mama (me) is around, and even then she watches her P’s & Q’s. When Ruby was little and very very playful, Sugar snapped at her. Once was all it took. Sugar Britches is the queen bee of the house. Her bark is the law for the other dogs here!
> That’s pretty much the kind of description used to outlaw “assault” rifles a few years ago. It worked then— it’ll work again.
...the key difference being that you have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined in your Second Amendment. That includes “assault” rifles. That is the only reason why it was immoral for the gummint to ban them.
You don’t have a Constitutional right to keep and bear mungrel mutt Pit Bull dogs.
All I can say is one had better come with more than 'feelings' 'cause those are likely to get hurt.
Do you really want to use that argument? "Cause if you do...
Nope. It sure ain't. It's actually worse. And being worse than PETA ain't a good thing.
Aw, I love the name!!
heh heh heh, Sugar Britches. Have you ever had to chase her down the street, calling her?
> If you came on my property without an invitation or warrant you would be on it “illegally”. So you can just trespass if you feel there is contraband on someone’s property?
If there was a dangerous Contraband mungrel mutt Pit Bull on your property, chances are good that only my bullet would trespass on your property — at least initially. I wouldn’t want to get bitten.
Once the Contraband was dead I would execise Lawful Purpose to enter your property and retrieve my property (the mungrell mutt’s carcass) for Bounty.
“Lawful Purpose” is the same legal principle that meter readers use to enter your property and read the electricity meters. “Lawful Purpose” isn’t trespassing.
“It will be the free market (bounties) and justice by free American citizens in action. On the other hand, “the Du or some other left wing site” would want to continue unnatural affections for animals preferred over people, preferences for government banning use of firearms to defend against dangerous animals, and the like.”
You talk about freedom,what about the freedom to own a breed of dog of one’s own choosing? Just like choosing whether or not to own a firearm to protect oneself against menacing pit bulls or “citizens “ who would like to impose their will against fellow citizens.
They always find their favorites at the park don’t they? My dog high energy. He always finds the dog with the most energy it seems.
PETA isn’t shy about killing companion animals. They don’t care how domesticated animals are eradicated, as long as they are. This BSL hysteria, no matter what breed it’s aimed at, is only helping them.
Actually we do. Our Constitutional rights are not limited to what is specifically articulated in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, some of the founders argued against a Bill of Rights for fear that some with tyrannical predispositions would come to understand that the only individual liberties would be those that were written down, when such was not their intent. I doubt they really ever contemplated a time when government would want to have a role, or the people would want to let the government have a role in telling them what kind of animal(s) they could own, but I'm sure a lot of the nanny-stater supporters are glad to subvert their intent in this area as in most others.
Specifically, if a right is not explicitly withheld or reserved by the Constitution, or further modified as delegated to the individual states, it's a Constitutional Right. Certainly the states can enact bans against them, but that is up to the individual states. Likewise, the interstate commerce clause has become so distorted and misinterpreted that the Federal government can now see fit to regulate anything it pretty much pleases, so we're now at the point where Constitutionality has very little to do with how we actually operate...which has allowed the collective wet dream for those who would tell the rest of us how best to live our lives and what kind of dogs we might own, how much salt we can put in our foods, what kind of helmet you have to wear when peddling your bike, etc.
Yes, I have, and I’ve gotten funny looks, too. We had a salesperson to come here once. He was young, in college, and desperate to sell some sort of books, and he braved the “Beware of Dog” sign to come up to the door. The two pits were friendly to him; calm and mannerly, while Sugar Britches was dying to tear him up. He told me the neighbors warned him of the mean dog and he was looking for the pit bulls to be lethal, not the Shih Tzu.
> Do you really want to use that argument? “Cause if you do...
Sure, why not? Declaring mungrel mutt Pit Bull dogs “Contraband” takes away any fuzziness about whether they are constitutionally-protected Property that you can own. They would be illegal to own full-stop. Just like cocaine or ricin or the Anthrax virus.
There are plenty of things that you, as a private Citizen, are not permitted to own. Many of them are dangerous. Mungrel mutt Pit Bull dogs could merely become one more of them.
I’m not even arguing with you. Joe 6-pack said it best in #72.
Well said.
If you did come on my property “lawful purpose” or not,I would release my gun powder fed chihuahua on your self righteous ass.I don’t think you would be able to shoot him as he’s really fast.I think ,after that, the “contraband” wouldn’t be the only thing assuming room temperature.
You need one of those “Beware of Dog” rugs with bite marks to put in front of your front door for your Shih Tzu. ;)
Just curious, Diehard. On your home page, which one is you in that group photo?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.