[Boomer]

No, that’s not what this is at all, this is taking away peoples rights and you are pushing for it.

You can’t call yourself a republican or a conservative and do this. They are diametrically opposite.

You really need to get off FR and go to your home over at DU with the other DUmmies.

Why are you here stirring up hate and discontent anyway? Does it give you some kind of thrill like it does the OP.

[imardmd1]

Boomer, I'll bet that MM was writing this in a sarcastic mode and that what she means would really be the opposite. If so, she could have added the < /sarc > quasi-tag.

But she can tell you that.

Calm down.

[Ikeon]

No, that’s not what this is at all, this is taking away peoples rights and you are pushing for it. I'm glad you brought up the peoples rights. I have the right to be safe in my person. so by your logic I also have the right to eliminate any threat to my safety. You have just advocated I can shoot your pit bull on sight. Sorry dude., but your rights end when you keep dangerous animals as pets and they aren't in a cage. YOU cannot predict which pit bulls will attack unprovoked and which pit bulls will be good pets. and until You and people like you change your minds about this breed and admit you cannot control every owner and there for cannot control the bite problem , pit bulls are too dangerous for the general pubic. You may be a great pitbull owner. but Id rather take 1000 lackadaisical golden retriever owners over 10 lazy pitbull owners.

[JayGalt]

There is a problem with your definition of “rights”.
Municipalities decide all the time what animals are allowed in private hands. You do not have the right to keep a tiger. You do not have the right to keep other animals deemed dangerous to the public. Most municipalities ban venomous snakes or license the ownership of them. Your local wildlife agency, lawyers office, fisheries dept will be able to tell you if they can be legally kept in your area.

So limiting which animals can be kept as pets is a balance of what is dangerous to the public at large versus limitations on the individual’s freedom and is enshrined in law.

The only question here seems to be that you disagree that pitbulls represent a threat to the general public. That is where another freedom comes into play. Relocate from a municipality that outlaws private ownership of pitbulls, that is your right. Campaign that pitbulls shouldn’t be outlawed ditto.

However your argument that people shouldn’t be allowed to classify pitbulls as dangerous and restrict ownership is emotional not logical or reasonable. I’d say your rights stop when people get tired of sacrificing 2 year olds or old ladies so you can own a tiger, a pitbull or any other breed/species that attacks mankind.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Lets use the right to bear arms and establish pitbull hunting seasons. Preferably Jan-Dec

[RoadGumby]

Trend analysis says that the likely hood of a maiming, mauling, or fatal attack increases with the frequency of interactions with a pit bull.