Police: Puppy Shot Man Trying To Kill Dogs

Local6.com / AP / via Drudge ^ | 9/9/04 | AP

[exodus]

I have put down dogs, personally, who were hit by cars. Maybe, if I had taken them to the vet, spent $2000.00, those dogs may have survived. What panel should decide that I did the right thing or that I am a sadistic monster who should be charged with a crime? Then again, I personally have killed livestock for personal use. Not once did I feel good about that. I always say a prayer for the animal and thank God for allowing me to feed my family.

What kind of monster does that make me?
**********************************

The very best kind of monster; a strong, independent, self-sufficient man.

Liberals everywhere are hiding under their beds, waiting for their government to beat you into submission.

[ZULU]

"He's just one step away from being a mass-murderer, in the eyes of our liberal society."

Heh Heh. I guess I really pushed your button. Deep down inside, you KNOW I''m right.

By the way, I'm not your "liberal society" - check out my posting history. ("I'm not any d@mn scout...and I ain't your d@mn militia." - Hawkeye - The Last of the Mohegans)

[exodus]

To: exodus
"... Deep down inside, you KNOW I''m right.
By the way, I'm not your "liberal society" - check out my posting history. ("I'm not any d@mn scout...and I ain't your d@mn militia." - Hawkeye - The Last of the Mohegans)
# 622 by ZULU
(Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
**********************************

Your tagline says it all, my friend; "Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great."

From the bottom of my soul, to the top of my shallow exterior, I know I'm right.

These animals were owned by a man who decided he didn't want them anymore, and instead of choosing to go to the trouble of finding a home for them or paying someone else to kill them, he did the killing himself.

What kind of man kills puppies? The kind who doesn't want to waste time or money on unwanted animals.

He could have gone to a government-sanctioned puppy killer, but instead chose to do the killing himself, and he used a [>shudder<] firearm to do the killing.

No one here is upset that the puppies were going to die. What upsets the compassionate animal lovers on this thread is not that death was in the air, but that the owner of the dogs was doing the killing himself, using a gun.

It's horrible that he gave the puppies a painless bullet to the head, but it would somehow be an honorable act to pay $50 apiece to have a government-licensed veterinarian poison the puppies.

There's no need for me to look up you're posting history ZULU; I'm familiar with your views from extensive readings on this forum over a long period of time. I know you aren't a liberal.

However, as I've pointed out, we do live in a liberal society, and we all have to guard against propaganda repeated over and over again until we just brainlessly accept it as truth.

You've accepted a liberal belief without thought, based upon nothing but emotion.

Poison = good; bullet = bad. Government permission = good; independent choice = bad.

That is a liberal attitude, a "feel-good" attitude, ZULU.

[ZULU]

"That is a liberal attitude, a "feel-good" attitude, ZULU"



You REALLY know how to hurt a guy, exodus.

[exodus]

You REALLY know how to hurt a guy, exodus.
**********************************

Being mean and hateful is the fun part of being an evil puppy-killing conservative. :)

[BagCamAddict]

Do you support criminal prosecution of this man?

Well actually, no. I don't know of any laws that he broke. And I don't think shooting a dog in the head amounts to cruelty because I do believe they die quickly and (if an accurate shot) painlessly.

I never commented on the criminality or lack thereof in this case... only that he was not a responsible pet owner, and that, had he been a responsible pet owner and/or responsible breeder, NONE of this would have happened in the first place.

And incidentally, for those who say he may not have been able to afford to have his bitch spayed... that's horsepuckey, because he could obviously afford to feed seven pups and a lactating bitch for three months. So he could have afforded to spay the bitch instead.

[BagCamAddict]

A man has the Right to make such decisions for himself.

Good Lord people, was Reading Comprehension not required where you went to school? I never said he didn't have a RIGHT to do any of the things he did. I never said he should be criminally prosecuted. I DID say he had a RESPONSIBILITY to do certain things as a pet owner.

But people have a RIGHT to breed also... and I don't think MOST people should be breeding either. So shoot me.

[CSM]

Thanks for the clarification. That is precisely why I asked the direct question.

[BagCamAddict]

Thanks for the clarification. That is precisely why I asked the direct question.

My pleasure. It's refreshing to dialogue with someone who is direct. Thank you for asking!

[exodus]

To: CSM
"... had he been a responsible pet owner and/or responsible breeder, NONE of this would have happened in the first place ..."
# 626 by BagCamAddict
**********************************

There is nothing in this story of puppy-killing that needed to be avoided, other than the over-reaction of the police to this man's honorable action.

[exodus]

To: CSM
"... had he been a responsible pet owner and/or responsible breeder, NONE of this would have happened in the first place ..."
# 626 by BagCamAddict
**********************************

Yes, and if he had been "responsible" and filled his tank last week, he wouldn't be almost out of gas today. So?

It is his decisions that count in his life, not armchair quarterbacking from the sidelines of our society.

Whether putting off dealing with the dogs, or putting off buying gas, as long as he gets around to taking care of his responsibilities, he's acting responsibly.

[exodus]

To: CSM
"... for those who say he may not have been able to afford to have his bitch spayed... that's horsepuckey, because he could obviously afford to feed seven pups and a lactating bitch for three months. So he could have afforded to spay the bitch instead.
# 626 by BagCamAddict
**********************************

First, no one has said he couldn't afford to get his dog spayed.

I did say that it was appaently his decision not to waste money having her spayed.

As for how he spent his money, and what he chose to do with his dog, it's his responsibility, not anyone else's; and his business, not anyone else's, at that.

It could be that he enjoys petting small puppies, but can't stand it when they get too big and start running wild, playing all over everything. In that case, he would have the enjoyment of playing with his small puppies, and the responsibility to do something to get rid of the puppies once they got too big.

Guns are a good tool for getting rid of puppies that get too big.

It's his decision, no one else's.

[exodus]

exodus - A man has the Right to make such decisions for himself.
BagCamAddict - I never said he didn't have a RIGHT to do any of the things he did ... I DID say he had a RESPONSIBILITY to do certain things as a pet owner ..."
**********************************

You say he has the Right to make decisions as he did, but he'd damned well better make the same decision you'd make in the same situation.

Well, that's completely illogical.

[exodus]

exodus - A man has the Right to make such decisions for himself.
BagCamAddict - "... people have a RIGHT to breed also... and I don't think MOST people should be breeding either ..."
**********************************

That's a very socialistic point of view.