Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: LongElegantLegs
"Punish them AFTER they fail"? You mean after an innocient victim minding his/her own business on pubic or his/her own private property, is DEAD or in intensive care? THAT's your "solution"? Then get ready for breed banning.

"You people" in Bully Breed Clubs had better change your mindset and get behind the power of pure peer pressure that you as free citizens have a God given right to exert, and in this case, have a DUTY to exert if you want to keep breed bans from happening.

When the GOVERNMENT goes nanny-state, that's one thing, and a very bad thing indeed. When private citizens come down on other citizens that abuse a privilege to the point of making it likley that it will be taken away, that's the right thing if they want to protect their rights and keep the government from stepping in.

This is the equivalent of having Dads in the neighborhood. Before the onslaught of single mothers, boys in the neighborhood behaved because their own or somebody else's dad would come kick their ass; no cops were needed. YOU are saying that it's better to let the kid go to jail and have the government handle it.

You want to keep the Bully Breeds from being banned? Then start using your own freedom to pressure irresponsible people from having the dogs and stop apologizing for it and trying to put it off on the government.

40 posted on 02/15/2010 7:47:55 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: Finny
You mean after an innocient victim minding his/her own business on pubic or his/her own private property, is DEAD or in intensive care? THAT's your "solution"?

News flash: That's how the justice system of a free people works. You don't get to punish people for having the capability to do harm.

YOU are saying that it's better to let the kid to jail and have the government handle it.

No, I'm saying that the people for whom peer pressure works, have already banded together. What's left are the willfully negligent and the irredeemably irresponsible; take their pitbulls away (along with everyone else's) and I guarantee you they'll find another way of inflicting harm on the innocent.

When the GOVERNMENT goes nanny-state, that's one thing, and a very bad thing indeed. When private citizens come down on other citizens that abuse a privilege to the point of making it likley that it will be taken away, that's the right thing if they want to protect their rights and keep the government from stepping in.

So *I* should become my neighbor's nanny? How about this; how about I control my animals,and take responsibility for my own family's safety, without preemptively impinging on anyone else's rights?

43 posted on 02/15/2010 9:51:30 AM PST by LongElegantLegs (Raise the fanged and warlike mistress, stern, impassive, weaponed mistress...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Finny

Places that have banned pit bulls have not seen any declines in serious attacks. See Denver, Colorado and especially the UK, whose attacks have increased. However, places that have not banned breeds but instead enforce responsible ownership laws (see Calgary) have seen huge declines in their serious attacks.

Whatever you believe to be the cause of this issue, you must see that the solution that works is not bsl, but greater accountability for dog owners. After all, 19 people died last year from non-pit bull-type dogs, and bsl would not protect them at all.


47 posted on 02/15/2010 3:04:39 PM PST by solosmoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson