[BJungNan]

Do you have to resort to abuse? I suggest that neither I nor any of the other posters opposed to banning specific breeds of dogs have ever owned a dog that has harmed anyone. To accuse someone of pedophilia because they are opposed to governments seizing well-behaved pets is not only abusive, it is sick.

You can keep trying to change the subject if you want but (1) as soon as I posted irrefutable horror of your position, you starting reaching for answers. It is just like someone that is for abortion being confronted with a picture of a baby in the womb - you can't handle the reality of your position.

The reality is that the dog that mauled that girl was someone's pet that thought it would never do such a thing.

[GMMAC]

Given that your FR homepage states:
"Posting from China when not in the U.S."
it makes it pretty easy to figure out how you fit in so well with the rest of the fascist, statist bully boys on this thread who seem to have no grasp whatsoever of such basic conservative tenets as "private property rights", "individual accountability" and "innocent until proven guilty".

BTW, rather than attempting to deluge us with one liberal-like, unreasoning, emotion-driven post after another why not merely try answering the simple question I asked way back in post #151:

" ... where's the justification/rationale for the negative impact of your draconian "final solution" on hundreds of thousands of law-abiding, conscientious dog-owners ???"