Mother, daughter attacked by pit bulls

Enid News ^

[Don W]

Dang, you got me: I rose to the bait.

You still come across as somewhat more statist than I am comfortable with.

[FTL]

familyop wrote: "The existence of pit bulls is a sure sign of public corruption in a jurisdiction. It prompts the question as to which local-yocal pillar of the community is fronting drug money".



Of this there can be no doubt and this post was overlooked IMO as far as bringing a significant observation into the discussion.

While obviously you are not saying that this is true in every single case, I defy anyone to find a county or jurisdiction with an unusually heavy concentration of Pit Bull owners where there isn't also a corresponding level of crime all centered around drug trafficking, gambling, prostitution and all the peripheral crime that goes with it.

Again - to the outraged PBT owners on these threads this doesn't apply in every case but even you gotta admit some of the people that some of you have dealt with in the Pit Bull world are pretty shady or suspected of being such........and you gotta admit that around the heavy drug activity zones of the inner cities or meth cooking white trash trailer parks in rural areas - there is often a significant higher number of PBT type dogs per capita usually on the end of chains, often poorly cared for, often heavily scared and fresh signs of fighting, owned by punks who think they are tough and people who have been in and out of prison their whole lives. Lets not gloss over the whole subculture going on here...

This is all basic police intelligence stuff. Nothing new to them and just part of the way they develop profiles on individuals, districts and communities. One more piece of the puzzle and same story they see over and over.

Having said all that - people should be free to pretty much own or do what they want - as long as they take total responsibility. And few people really want to when it comes right down to it. They always want an out or some wiggle room.

[FTL]

Heh heh... it happens.

I think you misinterpreted. I’m all for you doing whatever you want and owning whatever you want short of nuclear weapons I suppose - as long as you are all for taking total responsibility if whatever you do or whatever you own - hurts someone else then they or their survivors have the right of eye for an eye.

Problem is, most people want to do whatever it is they want to do, to hell with anyone else, and certainly NOT take any personal responsibility if something they do, own, or operate causes the death or maiming of others.

And that’s the root of the problem. Cause its all fun and games until you or someone you care about is on the receiving end of an injustice with little to no recourse.

Again, as an example; Some jail bird in and out of jail, on welfare, on drugs, no money, owns Pit Bulls, dog gets loose, rips some kids face and genitals off ruining the kids life and the family goes broke with medical bills tearing the family apart....

Jail bird owner get a slap on the wrist and has no money or insurance and doesn’t care anyway.

Where is the justice? What if it was your kid innocently riding a bike in your own driveway or taking the trash out and you didn’t get there in time? What are you going to do about it under the current laws? Go blow jail bird away and take his place in prison for the rest of your life?

Anyway, that sad story has happened before to people.

“An Eye for and eye society, is a polite society...”

Seems to be a reasonable enough proposition to me as long as its applied equally to all.

Just think, a society where people actually take personal responsibility for things and also have total freedom that comes with it. Novel concept.

Quite the conservative concept.

[FTL]

Most localities prohibit owning “killer” dogs. However, the dog must, in the majority of cases, be proven to individually be a danger to society.

You cannot prove that an entire breed (which the pit bull is not, by definition) or especially an entire type (which defines the term, “pit bull”, but also defines the term, “terrier”) of dog poses a definite threat to the citizens in the area

Yep, I agree. I covered that in post #112 above.

I'm in the middle playing against both sides of the debate because I think its an interesting one. I have owned PBT's Rotts and all the "killer dog" breed and am a great admirer of them but I make no bones about it knowing what a PBT can do and that they have an extra special "switch" somewhere in their brain that ones its tripped, can be a frigging nightmare.

Years ago I spent 30 minutes helping a friend try to get two Pits separated one dark stormy night when a tree branch fell and knocked the cable run off and two pits were able to get to each other. He couldn't do it by himself and had to call for help and I lived about 5 minutes away. The sound of grinding bones and tearing flesh and sinew is something you don't forget. Even with a pry stick it wasn't easy to separate the jaws that truly seem to lock.

Still, I think the whole thing is a metaphor for a society of total personal responsibility that I would like to see, backed up by true "Eye for an Eye" laws that put teeth and reality into the concept of "Total Personal Responsibility".

As an example: Want to do all the drugs you want? Go ahead, but no taxpayer money for you, welfare, or taxpayer funded "rehab" or anything else. And if you hurt someone while under the influence then what ever you did to them either maiming or killing shall be done to you. Pretty simple really. Not much different than Frontier justice which actually had its good points.

As I previously stated, I understand that few people actually want or can handle real personal responsibility when it comes right down to it. Most people want a good lawyer and some wiggle room or an "out" if they screw up. And therefore we have laws and rules to try to fill in the gaps and bring some semblance of justice and order. But often there is no real justice in a Liberal society. Just ask the surviving family members of those OJ killed.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Unfortunately, in this country, too many people are mere lovers, and don’t truly nurture The Dog.

I think it stems from the fact we never much used dogs as a culture for real work, outside some hunting dogs. What do you think of herding cows? Cowboys and their horses, not dogs. People didn’t use dogs in this country as other countries did. Not until police started using K9; there’s no background.

We think dogs are playtoys and not real separate beings (from humans) capable of real work and seriousness.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Funny, because frankly, all those things you mentioned can occur naturally and thus, really shouldn’t involve government.

Although I can see some reasonable oversight (especially for medical); but even starting up something should be free of hassle.

[FTL]

Funny, because frankly, all those things you mentioned can occur naturally and thus, really shouldn’t involve government. Although I can see some reasonable oversight (especially for medical); but even starting up something should be free of hassle. Can you be a little more specific about which things you are referring to?

[the OlLine Rebel]

I really don’t feel like getting into it. Driving is a right, not a privilege. It’s only because gov. made it the reverse and ignored the natural rights, then drilled the reverse phraseology into our heads for decades that it’s become “true”. Just about all your list really don’t need gov. to allow people to do this or that; they can do it on their own and be regulated by the “market”, if you will. Licensing really doesn’t mean much, except to put the licensee on a database to track him down.

[FTL]

O1LineRebel wrote: "I really don’t feel like getting into it. Driving is a right, not a privilege. It’s only because gov. made it the reverse and ignored the natural rights, then drilled the reverse phraseology into our heads for decades that it’s become “true”. Just about all your list really don’t need gov. to allow people to do this or that; they can do it on their own and be regulated by the “market”, if you will. Licensing really doesn’t mean much, except to put the licensee on a database to track him down."



So you are a "hit and run" poster eh? Kind of like the "Drive by Media" eh? You make a comment and then when asked to clarify it you retreat and state "I really don't want to get into it"? If that's the case, why comment at all? Its meaningless unless you can successfully argue your point. The translation of that being: "I made a statement but now I really can't defend it or clarify it". Kinda weak, don'tcha think?

Which "list" are you referring to? The one that states:

Operate a motor vehicle? (license, registration and proof of insurance please...and in some states annual vehicle inspection sticker)

Ok, you are on record as being against licensing for motor vehicle operation and anyone should be able to operate one regardless since that is the "natural law" alternative.

Operate a commercial truck or a school bus?

So you feel the operation of these is a non-regulated “natural law right”?

Operate an aircraft?

So you should be able to buy a 747 and fly it around without a license in NYC or the White House just because you feel like it and its your "natural law right" and "the market will take care of it"? How about a crop duster? Think unlicensed people ought to own and operate those wherever they want whenever they want cause its their "natural law right"?

Has satisfied the requirements for a building permit?

You feel building a structure any way you want outside of established engineering principals should be done anywhere willy-nilly and it’s a “natural law right”? So building a day care center for kids over an old toxic waste site and not disclosing is a “natural law right”? How about building a hospital with shoddy construction over an earthquake fault zone? No regulation needed eh? "Natural law right"? No government regulation needed?

Operate a ferry boat or commercial vessel?

You feel the operation of any commercial vessels is a non-regulated “natural law right”?

Operate a freight train full of dangerous chemicals?

You feel the operation of trainloads of dangerous chemicals through the heart of populated areas is a non-regulated “natural law right”?

Practice as a doctor, Nurse, certified engineer, lawyer or veterinarian?

You want anyone of those practicing on you or for you without any regulation and they are “natural law rights”? To fraudulently hold yourself out to the public as brain surgeon or engineer just because you say you are one under your "natural law rights"?

Carry a concealed weapon?

In this case – I will agree that no law should be required. This is a battle we are not likely to win on this particular issue. However, the context of the original question was not even this. The context of the original question was “who is going to make the rules about how dangerous animals should be contained and the answer is simple. The same entity that makes all the rules in society – the government. However – owning Pit Bulls is not a right under the constitution. While I make that statement, it does not mean I am against owning PBT’s , I am merely making an observation.

Promote and host professional fights?

In this case society has determined that government regulations are required such as all fighters must be tested for communicable diseases, must be mentally sound so some retard isn’t taken advantage of and put up to fight, etc. (Mike Tyson is retired...budda-boom)(Ok, some "Mentally Disabled Person" but Obama says it ok to laugh at retards). Not a particularly big issue on my radar that I care about one way or the other.

Be certified and sworn as a police officer?

You feel that police officers do not need to be certified as competent and no criminal record and that being a LEO is a “natural law right”?

Be certified as a fire fighter?

Same as above

Work as a licensed Private Investigator? (varies from state to state.) Same concept as “professional fights”

Something tells me that you lost your motor vehicle operators license and they haven't issued you another one or you have had some other considerable trouble with licensing or motor vehicle operating privilege. The only people I have ever known who argue about how driving is a "natural law right" are people who have had their licenses revoked - usually for DUI. Just saying. Your case may be different, who knows. Good luck with that licensing issue by the way.

Funny, I didn't even bring up the subject of motor vehicle operation as a "right" - you did and it was nowhere in this thread until you suddenly decided to bring it up. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

Most people who don't have any problems with driving and licensing don't even give it a second thought and they operate their vehicles freely 24/7 free as a bird as long as they operate the vehicle within the prescribed bounds of the law. And these same people agree that the basic rules and regulations that provide some semblance of order on the roads in America and other advanced nations is prudent, professional, wise, and absolutely necessary as the alternative would be chaos and misery - much like that found in most 3rd world nations.

Driving on public roads is NOT a right its a privilege granted to those who demonstrate that they can operate a motor vehicle safely without endangering anyone else.

Even WITH the most basic of rules and regulations in place, nearly 50,000 people are killed on our roadways every year.

I think it would be safe to say that if driving was only governed by "natural law right", then hundreds of thousands more would be killed each year due to the increased number of non-driving-idiots from 3rd world nations driving on our roads (they are allowed, thanks to Liberalism, if they meet criteria, just as we are allowed to drive on their roads - not that I would want to), reckless and drunk/drugged drivers on the roads and people who are simply too old or whose health problems mean they have no business driving.

Hate to tell you but the list of your "rights" as an American citizen are enumerated in the constitution. If you have a problem with that, don't blame me - I didn't write it. Blame the constitution or blame America if you feel so inclined and feel that it is a flawed document. Obama, Wright and many Leftists also feel the Constitution is a flawed document BTW, but I digress.

Driving isn't one of the rights listed. And it doesn't fall under "pursuit of happiness" or anything else - go ahead and try arguing that one in court and see how far you get. Although it can certainly be a privilege and revocable certification granted as long as you follow the rules or qualify to drive.

Using your logic that driving is a "natural right", then the legally blind guy living next door to you who can only vaguely see rough shapes should be able to hop in his 18 wheeler tractor trailer and race up and down the street in front of your house while your kids are playing - any time he wants. Interesting concept there.

Something tells me you will find very few people that agree with your ideas about operation of motor vehicles is an undeniable "right". Rights are undeniable and cannot be infringed upon - except in the case of felons, traitors and those who renounce their citizenship. Which means there should not even be a Democrat party if we actually enforced those laws. Privileges can be revoked.

True, there are nations where there are no virtually no enforced rules and regulations for driving and they consider driving a "natural right". Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, most third world $h*tholes for that matter. They also have the highest incidents of motor vehicle deaths, maiming, crashes and other misery per capita.

Just as a felon doesn't have the "right" to vote or carry weapons even though ACORN thinks otherwise. Driving is a privilege which can be revoked if you don't follow the basic rules - as it should be.

So according to your logic, habitual drunk drivers have the "right" to drive and put your life and the life of others in danger?

So you are what? An anarchist? Cause what you just stated is a basic tenant of the anarchist crowd.

Have you ever served in the military or in any paramilitary organization where others depend on you to be able to follow the rules, follow the regulations, submit to authority, follow a plan other than your "natural rights" so you don't end up killing them let alone yourself? If so, how did that work out for you? Just curious.

Drivers licensing privilege amounts to discipline. There has to be a way to enforce discipline on the roads. Since a "right" is non-revocable (except in the case of felons for certain rights) just how do you think discipline can be enforced on our roadways if driving is a "natural law right"? It starts with certification and licensing. And its enforced by revoking the privilege of those who are unable to follow the rules.

[apocalypto]

I find a big difference between guns and pit bulls. I have no fear to be alone in a room filled with guns. I would never be alone with even one pit bull. Guns do not act on their own but dogs can.

[metmom]

Reddick said they will seek to determine if the dogs can be destroyed.

They ought to be. Any animal that makes that kind of effort to go after someone with no provocation, should be shot-no questions asked.

[afraidfortherepublic]

PS. Show me a pic of the culprits. Few people know the difference between a Pit and a Boxer. Everything from Mastiffs to English Bulldogs are called Pit Bulls by the press.

I saw a handsome dog being walked on a leash near our manufacturing plant. Sorrel and white. I was sure it was a Pit Bull, but I asked the owner if it was an American Stafforshire Terrier. She said, "No, it's a cross between a Lab and a Boxer."

I sure couldn't seen any Lab in that dog. It looked like a pure bred Am Staff to me.

[HossB86]

Absolutely.

[kanawa]

fwiw

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/42919612.html

[the OlLine Rebel]

Your posts are so long-winded that I really don’t have the patience to read them.

I didn’t feel like chatting exactly because of your obvious penchant for huge posts, the long time it would take to cover everything I could think of, combined with the fact I am a housewife suffering from ulcerative colitis and caring for a baby. Since my gut was burning, I didn’t feel like writing much.

I’m still not reading your post, so suffice to say I’m very libertarian.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Caught your statement about “rights enumerated in the Constitution”. Sorry, but there are TONS of natural rights that could not possibly be reasonably enumerated. Your premise is wrong. Only some vital things were mentioned to ensure those vital things were RECOGNIZED (not “given” - they are always existant; it’s only a matter of the gov. recognizing that fact) when in history they commonly were NOT, as with the British Empire at the time.

[the OlLine Rebel]

And, excuse me, but I have NEVER had anything revoked, including a DL. I had 1 small accident the day after I got my DL at 16, and that is it. I don’t drink because I despise both the taste and drunkeness, so that possibility is out.

I am a model citizen, in point of fact. I am going on 40 now. Don’t challenge my morality, because you would be all wrong.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“Practice as a doctor, Nurse, certified engineer, lawyer or veterinarian”

Guess what? You’re wrong. I’m an engineer. We STILL don’t have to be licensed. The world hasn’t come to an end. I pray engineers at least never have to be. And I pray they revoke the nonsense on so much else. It stifles creativity and innovation. Was Thomas Edison licensed? Robert Fulton? How about Robert Stephenson? Or Orville Wright?

Really I’m not against many rules, especially at local levels. But if they wanted to leave things free, that’d be OK. I lean more to fewer rules.

[FTL]

“Practice as a doctor, Nurse, certified engineer, lawyer or veterinarian”

Guess what? You’re wrong. I’m an engineer. We STILL don’t have to be licensed"

Guess what? I'm talking about Civil engineers. Nice canard though.

All states require that any civil Professional Engineer (PE) involved in building infrastructure etc. be licensed by the state. This authorizes the PE to certify plans with an official stamp and puts their name and accountability on the line if something goes wrong. If there is a state that doesn't, then I would certainly avoid traveling there.

You are not going to hold yourself out as a civil engineer to design and approve plans for critical buildings and structures in the US or most civilized countries without government professional "licensing" and certification or other government credentialing oversight showing you have passed a set level of professional testing to prove you know at least something about what you are doing (and some of these tests and credentialing are pretty tough). Further, should one engage in malpractice then your credentials can be revoked. If one then attempts to continue without the required credentials, then an injunction by a court will be issued. If one defies that, one defies the court and it progresses downhill from there.

Same thing with a drivers license. It is a credential that states you have passed the minimum level of testing required and demonstrates that you know at least the basics about how to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads and that you physically qualified to do so. It is not a "right". This is the will of the people that it be so. You, apparently, are the odd duck out. That's your right but you won't find many agreeing with your idea about how driving is a "Natural Law Right - License Not Required", especially those who have had family members maimed or killed by drunk or negligent drivers.

Just because someone passes the test and is issued a driver's license does not mean one will follow the rules or is even a safe or skilled driver. That is where the enforcement part of the system comes in and license revocation when required.

Kind of getting the idea about the way modern societies operate here? Just trying to help you out with this driver's license thing you got going here.

Don't confuse "Big Brother Government Abuse" and "The Mark of The Beast" and all that jazz with the simple realities of society needing people to be licensed to drive when operating the current technology that we posses and use. Its not an automatic right. Those are separate issues. Even if Libertarians or Conservatives had total control of society - you would still be doing the drivers license thing. Your contention that driving is a "natural law right" and that people shouldn't have to have a driver's license is ludicrous under the current system and can be dismissed.

You claim to be an engineer; frankly I'm somewhat amazed that you have difficulty with these concepts. You are certainly one of a kind as I have never met a civil engineer who isn't all about loving rules, regulations, procedures, orderly society and such and is a very logical and mind-ordered person. You didn't state what type of engineer you are. That word is very loosely thrown around these days BTW. But since you list a bunch of mechanical engineers and inventors, I am assuming your interest lies in mechanical engineering.

Here's the rub: Anytime you ask or require someone to put their name and accountability on the line, there is always a segment of the population that this rubs the wrong way and they will immediately say things like "well, that stifles my creativity", etc. We are not talking about pure art here - we are talking about sensible public safety. If you were to get to the actual root of the issue, the real problem with these individuals is they want to be able to do whatever they want but not be held accountable for anything. And that is simply an indication of a lack of maturity. Banks, hedge funds crooked brokers and Ponzi Schemes want to be able to do whatever they want with no accountability. Clinton wants to be able to lie under oath - and not be held one bit accountable. So why shouldn't everyone else if the president says it's ok? Most young children are the same way. They want to be able to do whatever they want without any accountability. In real life, that usually that results in innocent people being injured or killed by careless or negligent people. Responsibility and accountability must be taught. Some adults never learn it. The prison system is jam packed full of them.

I suppose you are all for having your kids or grand kids be taken across bridges built by unlicensed contractors and engineers who didn't know what they were doing. Or sitting in schools that have fatal design flaws because just anyone was allowed to design and build them.

We tried that in the past before we knew what we were doing as a modern nation. The US was once a backwater 3rd world nation, believe it or not. Much of our technological prowess early on came from Europe where civilizations date back thousands of years. Heck - WE came from Europe for the most part. In times past, the results of engineering were not always consistent and people lost their lives due to carelessness, ineptness, ignorance and incompetence. So things were improved upon and regulated and now the rate of man-made catastrophe has been reduced as far a civil engineering goes. You know, all those little things people take for granted like Fire Codes, Building Codes, Electrical Codes. Or in the case of some people "all those codes and rules an' stuff, its all a Big Commie Plot! Uh, no. Not everything is a Commie plot. Most things - yes.

How do you think America overcame any earlier design flaws and shortcomings to evolve as the great nation that it once evolved to? Now we are devolving into the failed policies of Marxism.

I see you threw a few a few noted inventors and mechanical engineers from the early industrial revolution in the mix that harken back to a time when there were also great calamities by fire and failed engineering that killed a lot of people by dam failures, and such. How about asbestos? Great idea and great product - until we found out a wee bit more about it. I imagine you would like to go back to those times of little to no regulation with regards to civil engineering, building, fire and electrical codes. Nice straw man, but has little to do with your contention that people shouldn't have to be licensed to drive cars and that driving is a "natural law right".

I think what you don't want, is anyone to have any enforceable personal accountability. When someone robs a bank or kills someone by criminal negligence, they are tried, convicted and punished. This is called Justice - which is another word for - "forced personal accountability" Mankind has operated this way for eons.

Most people will tell you that there are limits to freedom. Even in America. I understand that some people have a problem with that. If there is a TOTALLY 100% absolutely free society somewhere where you can do whatever you want with no regulation or accountability whatsoever, that is not some 3rd world dung heap - name it.