Pit Bull saves 2 women from deadly cobra,dies wagging his tail

Dogs in the News ^ | Mar 1, 2007 | BARANGAY LAPASAN

[Porterville]

For you liberals that call yourself conservative.

[SnakeDoctor]

Maybe it mistook the cobra for a small child ...

SnakeDoc (no relation)

[Porterville]

liberal logic... makes sense to you

[mcmuffin]

3 year old article?

As for pitbulls, more snakes, please.

[SnakeDoctor]

Small children seem to be more within their regular diet than venemous snakes.

Must all conservatives like pit bulls?

SnakeDoc

[Porterville]

I’ll put as much positive press as is available to prevent psycho’s in hyped up hysteria to put forth nonsense.

[Porterville]

no, but all conservatives should not like bans on personal rights.... like many liberal threads that demonize the dog.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> I’ll put as much positive press as is available to prevent psycho’s in hyped up hysteria to put forth nonsense.

If the only positive press available is a single 2007 article — your position may not be as logical as you seem to think it is.

SnakeDoc

[Porterville]

Shall I post more? Yes, yes I shall.

[pissant]

Frankly the best use of pit bulls is for python food.

[SnakeDoctor]

I think local bans are within the realm of Constitutionality — local self-government is fundamental to conservatism. If a locality deems pit bulls too dangerous to own, I have no problem with a locality banning the dogs ... the evidence seems to suggest they are prone to attacking people.

Pit bulls are not constitutionally protected, and are therefore free reign for local democratic governments. If they can ban ownership of tigers, they can ban ownership of pit bulls. If your locality bans them, and you disagree ... move to one that doesn’t.

Even if pit bulls are legal to own — I do believe owners should be held strictly liable for injury caused by that dog (as the legal owner of a wild animal would be).

SnakeDoc

[Porterville]

sure... like gun bans... wait.. no they are not ... but a libtard would think otherwise.

[whatisthetruth]

The pro and cons of Pitbulls? Why are they considered so dangerous?

[Porterville]

frankly, for someone who abuses dogs, the best use for is jail food.

[mcmuffin]

I’ll put as much positive press as is available to prevent psycho’s in hyped up hysteria to put forth nonsense.

Whatever.

[pissant]

I wouldn’t consider feeding them to a snake “abuse” anymore than I consider it abuse for orientals to eat them

[Porterville]

hyperbole?... spastic?... insane anxiety?

[SnakeDoctor]

>> sure... like gun bans... wait.. no they are not ... but a libtard would think otherwise.

Firearm ownership is Constitutionally protected by the 2nd amendment — localities have no authority to ban. Pit bulls are not, and thus the 10th amendment controls ...

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The power to ban pit bulls is not delegated to the federal government, and not prohibited by the Constitution ... and thus is reserved for the States, localities and citizens to enact or not at their will.

If you cannot see the distiction between Constitutionally protected firearm ownership, and unprotected pitbull ownership ... you know less about conservatism than you let on.

SnakeDoc

[Porterville]

Of course not.... but the state prison and criminal justice system in all 50 states would consider otherwise...

[SnakeDoctor]

>> frankly, for someone who abuses dogs, the best use for is jail food.

What about dogs who maul children? Target practice?

SnakeDoc