Only if I had written drivers be penalized before they drink alcohol.
A "pit bull" in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone.
"Shelby, a Staffordshire-pit bull mix service dog, sits beside his owner, David Dalrymple"
Posted on 11/22/2008 5:19:40 PM PST by Chet 99
Look at the freakin’ posts yourself. It’s in THIS thread. I’m not going to hold your hand for you. If you can read enough into what I say to say I have a ‘gang banger mentality’ surely you can go back to the specified posts
Here's a novel idea. Instead of banning breeds, enforce strict dangerous dog laws, that mandate unpleasant penalties for those individuals who own dogs, regardless of breed who pose, through their behavior, a danger to society.
They don't say what you allege. That's why you won't quote them.
After the child is mauled, give the pit owner an "unpleasant" penalty.
That's one way to go. Some communities are deciding to be more proactive.
“Look at the freakin’ posts yourself.
They don’t say what you allege. That’s why you won’t quote them.”
Wrong. Read:
“”It’s not necessary for the Gummint to make them illegal: all they need to do is declare them Contraband and announce a bounty. Well-armed law-abiding citizens can do the rest, at little cost to the taxpayer and no inconvenience to the erstwhile owners of the Pit Bull mungrel mutts.
There. Problem solved.””
“Here in New Zealand our gummint “trusts” us to do plenty of varmint control by ourselves. With real guns and no bounty. The gummint does not get involved.
“
“That is why mungrel mutt Pit Bulls need to be declared Contraband: so that it is illegal to own or breed them, and even more illegal to resist their lawful destruction. Just like a marijuana crop.”
“If there was a dangerous Contraband mungrel mutt Pit Bull on your property, chances are good that only my bullet would trespass on your property — at least initially. I wouldn’t want to get bitten.
Once the Contraband was dead I would execise Lawful Purpose to enter your property and retrieve my property (the mungrell mutt’s carcass) for Bounty.
“Lawful Purpose” is the same legal principle that meter readers use to enter your property and read the electricity meters. “Lawful Purpose” isn’t trespassing.
“
Right there. Black and white.
After the child is mauled, give the pit owner an "unpleasant" penalty.
"After the person is killed by the gun, give the gun owner an "unpleasant" penalty." "After the person is killed by the drunk driver, give the drunk an "unpleasant" penalty." "After the person is killed by the knife, give the knifer an "unpleasant" penalty."
Have him arrested.
I didn’t notice pit bulls mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
Interesting. You're arguing that drunk drivers should only be penalized after an accident happens?
““If there was a dangerous Contraband mungrel mutt Pit Bull on your property, chances are good that only my bullet would trespass on your property —
Have him arrested.
“
Under his concept, that would not be possible because he was advocating making it LEGAL. That was one large point of what he was posting.
>You’re arguing that drunk drivers should only be penalized after an accident happens?<
I said that if you said you want to give Chinese Pit Bulls carte blanche to eat people.
I guess you think that a drunk who kills someone does not suffer anything more unpleasant than a drunk stopped for running a red light?
So if drunk drivers can be penalized before they cause an accident, pit bull owners can be penalized before their animal mauls a neighbors child or pet. You shot down your own position.
Only if I had written drivers be penalized before they drink alcohol.
A "pit bull" in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone.
"Shelby, a Staffordshire-pit bull mix service dog, sits beside his owner, David Dalrymple"
By that "reasoning", a "drunk driver" in and of himself doesn't hurt anyone.
>By that “reasoning”, a “drunk driver” in and of himself doesn’t hurt anyone.<
IF you want to call that idiocy “reasoning”.
It’s your reasoning.
>it’s your reasoning.<
ROFL.
Extreme short term memory loss?
>”After the person is killed by the drunk driver, give the drunk an “unpleasant” penalty.”<
Ah, so I guess you are saying you want the death penalty for everyone who blows a 0.8 on a breath test, then.
Aren’t we the little Napoleon.
You "guessed" wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.